[News] Mr Cummings and the COVID inquiry.

[Iggle Piggle]

I think it’s just Mail and Telegraph after Cummings on the front pages today. The only two rags left who are loyal to Johnson. This is a surprise.

The Sun and The Express are normally staunchly pro-Johnson, no matter what the ***t gets up to but the fact that he chose the Mail over them for his c***ish-column has probably meant they are less willing to defend the narcissistic ****er.

View attachment 168999

Kin hell. That Robbie Williams headline might as well be describing me.

 

[Wozza]

What is the point of this enquiry? They say this is about learning lessons, but it is merely a tickbox exercise. All that is being revealed is confirmation that the people at the top are the complete bunch of c*nts we already knew they were.

There are still PLENTY of people out there who still make excuses for Boris and co.

At the very least, the enquiry will make them feel like fools (even if they don’t admit it).

 

[A1X]

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Of course, the warning signs were there at the time…

View attachment 169005

Same warnings when we fully unlocked for the last time.

The rules were complete rubbish, even more so looking back, that's not saying no one should have been shielded.

 

[KZNSeagull]

The most important evidence given today was by Helen MacNamara when she said that Hancock had repeatedly said that there was a pandemic plan already drawn up. She soon realised that this plan didn't exist and with a feeling of impending doom informed the PM's office that she thought that "we are all f***ed" and that hundreds of thousands of people were going to die. The plan has still not been found.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I agree to an extent, and I apologise for the length of what follows.

However, I do feel that previous Civil Service heads would have quite rightly enforced some form of order onto the chaos, while the current crop seem to have given in to a feeling of helplessness and allowed themselves to be steamrollered by their political masters.

While some would argue that being a lapdog style servant to a minister is democracy in action, I am far more in favour of the old style Civil Service, which seemed to have far less jumping around, and people in position who knew their subject, and would be able to authoritatively explain to their minister why their stupidest ideas were not going to be carried forward.

You cannot run a country on a 4/5 year election cycle. Decisions need to be taken on a basis that understands their impact now, their impact in a decade, and their impact in a century.

Ministers are appointed, often with no experience in the area to which they’ve been assigned, shown to their new offices, and then left to their own devices, with only their team of ideologically driven SPADS hovering around them. Expecting sound long-term decision-making to come from this setup is, in my view, naive.

Absolutely the public should vote for a political party, the party manifesto should set out what the government wants/expects to achieve, but the Civil Service needs to be a strong, apolitical, well-informed institution that subjects these aims to a cold hard reality check before any legislation is drafted, because the whole country is going to have to live with the results of any new legislation for decades to come.

My personal view is that the Civil Service should act as a circuit breaker that means if there is political paralysis or indecision, the country is largely shielded from the worst of it. In this instance we were clearly governed by narcissistic fools, but the Civil Service did not bring them to order. Thus I view this as a double failure, of our politicians of the time, but also of the underlying Civil Service leadership who proved unable to either bang their political masters heads together, or cut them out and work around them.

When politicians complain of having to fight the Civil Service, very few stop to consider that this might have been a very good thing, and prevented them from doing something colossally stupid.

I have fairly good knowledge of the way the Civil Service operates and had contacts there throughout the period we're discussing.

The major change in the way the Civil Service interacted with the Government was between May going and Johnson taking over. Up until that point all Governments would lay out their objectives and then from the most senior levels (Government Ministers with their respective Permanent Secretaries downwards) would discuss, investigate and agree ways of achieving those objectives effectively using the experience and expertise of the Civil Service and suggested solutions to issues were welcomed right down to fairly Junior levels.

The big change was when Johnson and co arrived, they decided that they knew exactly what they wanted, how to achieve every aspect of it and would give no consideration to knowledge, experience or expertise, as Cummings described it yesterday, 'an orgy of narcissism'. And the narcissists at the top weren't going to listen to reason, setting them on a collision course with the Civil Service from day 1 and in that scenario there will only ever be one winner (and it wasn't going to be the country ). Remember, this was the most inexperienced Cabinet in years, Gove and Truss being the only ones with significant ministerial experience.

Senior Civil servants recognised this and tried to use their knowledge and experience, their teams and experts to suggest that maybe some reconsideration was required. However, this was met with exactly the type of responses you would expect from a narcissistic cabal, now clearly being detailed daily in the Covid inquiry.

Senior people who had tried to 'push back' in any shape or form against this current Government who wouldn't listen to reason, expertise or experience, were moved out, undermined or left/moved due to their own complete inability to effect anything or defend Britain against what it's Government were doing. It only took 2 years to leave Westminster in a state of complete utter and pure chaos, which is why we are where we are today.

I knew this was happening and tried to highlight it at the time, but obviously not well enough

 

[hans kraay fan club]

As much as I hate the Tory party and Boris, if you ignore the language which has been exaggerated to cause shock and outrage to distract you from the actual facts, if we followed the 'Swedish' approach, we would have had a much better pandemic response.

What is really happening here is an unelected bureaucrat who convinced half of you that unelected bureaucrats are making you poorer and lowering your standards of living to vote brexit, because if you do, you'll get your sovereignty back and all the prosperity of the empire. But in reality, he is selling your sovereignty to the WHO, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.

He is playing a role here to convince you that when bill gates releases his next man-made virus into the population, the WHO can overrule your elected government and lock you up in your own homes because your elected government can't run the country for you.

It will be the WHO who decides what a pandemic is and when you're in a state of emergency so that they can restrict your civil liberties and if you don't comply, shut off your bank as they've conned you into CBDC and restrict your travel via a digital id and health certificate. All the while they can still fly about in their private jets enjoying the freedom handed down to them by their families' generational wealth.

Hi Matt le Tissier

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The most important evidence given today was by Helen MacNamara when she said that Hancock had repeatedly said that there was a pandemic plan already drawn up. She soon realised that this plan didn't exist and with a feeling of impending doom informed the PM's office that she thought that "we are all f***ed" and that hundreds of thousands of people were going to die. The plan has still not been found.

There was a pandemic plan, they ignored it.

 

[KZNSeagull]

There was a pandemic plan, they ignored it.

Who is 'they'? This senior civil servant says that there wasn't one.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Who is 'they'? This senior civil servant says that there wasn't one.

Maybe she was too busy getting a karaoke machine for the parties to look herself?

 

[KZNSeagull]

Maybe she was too busy getting a karaoke machine for the parties to look herself?

She shouldn't need to. One would think that an organisation like that would have something akin to a centralised risk register which is regularly maintained and updated.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

She shouldn't need to. One would think that an organisation like that would have something akin to a centralised risk register which is regularly maintained and updated.

It's on the Gov website.

Not sure it's hidden away.

The question is why was it ignored, which given it was Hancock that said it, who knows.

 

[Hastings gull]

I know. Doesn't matter how cruel, corrupt or incompetent the Tories are, there are still millions of my fellow citizens who'll say "Yeah, but Labour would be worse" or "Yeah, but all politicians are the same, so better the devil you know."

I genuinely think that a lot of Tory voters - many of them are elderly or/and uneducated - are similar to Trump's brain-dead worshippers in the US; no amount of wickedness or malevolence will make them change their minds. They will simply dismiss all criticism and evidence of wrong-doing as 'Fake News' or a 'liberal witch-hunt' against their hero.

I genuinely think that this sort of generalised assertion is typical of a very arrogant person who assumes that his/her view is superior to that of others.

 

[drew]

I wonder if Johnson is at this very minute talking to his lawyers to see if he can take out a super injunction against himself from having to disclose information to the inquiry!! Presumably the same firm he used for the alleged last one!!!

 

[A1X]

 

[Peteinblack]

Pp,

I genuinely think that this sort of generalised assertion is typical of a very arrogant person who assumes that his/her view is superior to that of others.

Funny, because that is exactly how I feel about so many Tories who contemptuosly dismiss anyone who disagrees with them by calling them Woke or Commie. Boris Johnson, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel Jacob Rees-Mogg the Daily Mail, etc, epitomise this arrogance, but it seems that you only take offence when a powerless NSC poster criticises them.

Says a lot about you, I think.

 

[Hastings gull]

Pp,

Funny, because that is exactly how I feel about so many Tories who contemptuosly dismiss anyone who disagrees with them by calling them Woke or Commie. Boris Johnson, Suella Braverman Priti Patel Jacob Reed-Mogg the Daily Mail, etc, epitomise this arrogance, but it seems that you only take offence when a powerless NSC poster criticises them.

Says a lot about you, I think.

But I have not used any of the words you describe and you could well be right about the politicians you mention, though I suspect that most politicians of all persuasions are so. Having been in education myself for 40 years, I wonder how you would have reacted in a classroom or student debate when one of them commented, without any evidence, that a huge section of society was thick, simply because they did not share his/her views. By your logic, that would have been acceptable -is that the message you would have wanted to put across? That is the issue here, not whether lefties or righties are better, as you would arrogantly advocate.

 

[WATFORD zero]

But I have not used any of the words you describe and you could well be right about the politicians you mention, though I suspect that most politicians of all persuasions are so. Having been in education myself for 40 years, I wonder how you would have reacted in a classroom or student debate when one of them commented, without any evidence, that a huge section of society was thick, simply because they did not share his/her views. By your logic, that would have been acceptable -is that the message you would have wanted to put across? That is the issue here, not whether lefties or righties are better, as you would arrogantly advocate.

This thread has been primarily about the Covid inquiry detailing the overwhelming evidence of sheer contempt and disdain with which The Johnson Government treated the people who voted it into power.

I genuinely think that this sort of generalised assertion is typical of a very arrogant person who assumes that his/her view is superior to that of others.

I don't see it as particularly arrogant to state his view about people who then ignore all that evidence, dismiss all criticism and evidence of wrong-doing as 'Fake News' or a 'liberal witch-hunt' and then to do exactly the same thing again

What do you think about the thread topic. ie what has been reported at the inquiry ?

 

[beorhthelm]

She shouldn't need to. One would think that an organisation like that would have something akin to a centralised risk register which is regularly maintained and updated.

one might think so, but which organisation? see below. we know there is a pandemic plan, cited in many papers, reviews, court cases, revolves around flu and this was not flu so didn't work (clear the hospitals to make space... oh bugger). one could say there was no flexible plan for response to a Covid-19 like pandemic.

the authority supposed to maintain that plan was PHE, a pink box centre left. they had staff of around 250 for this purpose.

 

[Hastings gull]

This thread has been primarily about the Covid inquiry detailing the overwhelming evidence of sheer contempt and disdain with which The Johnson Government treated the people who voted it into power.



I don't see it as particularly arrogant to state his view about people who then ignore all that evidence, dismiss all criticism and evidence of wrong-doing as 'Fake News' or a 'liberal witch-hunt' and then to do exactly the same thing again

What do you think about the thread topic. ie what has been reported at the inquiry ?

You need to read what he actually wrote and what I took issue with. It was not about what Johnson's government did or did not do, and you could well be right about Boris. But the poster arrogantly dismisses millions of his fellow citizens as being thick simply for having an opposing view - that is the issue, if you really want to see it, that is.