[News] Mr Cummings and the COVID inquiry.

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am bound by confidentiality but working for a multinational company I had access to data and advice in jan that indicated a path and trajectory for the infection, when it would hit europe and the speed it would travel. It was regularly reviewed and was pretty much on the money.

Our own plans for offices, colleagues and customers were based on it and one of our advisors was also advising other major companies and public figures.

If little old me had that data and insight I am sure the govt did too. As a company you dont have the responsibility the govt has across healthcare, economy etc so decisions are easier for them than a govt but it would be wrong to say we didnt have insight we should have listened to or that we didnt understand it.

Precisely. Johnson was told everything and cherry picked whatever suited him in pursuit of a political narrative. He is now recolouring every decision to paint himself as the wise and benevolent PM who saved us all from what would have been a much worse fate had he not been in charge.

I am actually getting a stress muscle spasm in my neck listening to all his old bollocks. And yet....80% of it probably sounds quite plausible to his fans, and the rest is 'probably irrelevant'.

He is getting killed now with the reading of some of his messages, for example describing his own mask policy as 'f***ed up' and the fact that decisions were being made primarily to thwart the wishes of unions. Two 'fucks' on national radio in the space of 5 minutes.

He claims the 'f***ed up' description simply reflected a change in the perception of the role of masks, and that the perception had changed. Unbelievable.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

From Johnson's views he just lies but is poor at it. However far too much is being made about the language used. Many of these messages were considered private and so the language is likely to be basic.

It's obvious that he was and is a twat.

I said at the time and will again, this should have immediately become a war cabinet that included all parties. It was far too big for any one government trying to score political points. The idiots in the Tories and even those in Labour would have been chucked out.

 

[Baldseagull]

Then it comes back again faster and harder as more people get infected.

How does it come back faster and harder with a lower base level of infected people?

 

[amexer]

I dont know what people expect. Any politician will try and defend themself Just look at Cummings still saying drove 30 miles to test his eyes and Blair maybe now only one saying right to go to war

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

From Johnson's views he just lies but is poor at it. However far too much is being made about the language used. Many of these messages were considered private and so the language is likely to be basic.

It's obvious that he was and is a twat.

I said at the time and will again, this should have immediately become a war cabinet that included all parties. It was far too big for any one government trying to score political points. The idiots in the Tories and even those in Labour would have been chucked out.

I genuinely haven't heard anyone complaining about the language (as such). Nobody on this thread had complained. Nobody in the hearing have complained. Who has been making too much of it? Gloria Hunniford? The baby-eating bishop of Bath and Welles?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I dont know what people expect. Any politician will try and defend themself Just look at Cummings still saying drove 30 miles to test his eyes and Blair maybe now only one saying right to go to war

'whatabout Tony Blair' does not lessen the weight of the mountain of lies now teetering on Johnson's shoulders.

The moral equivalence argument (tell one lie once and you are as bad as someone who does nothing but lie) a faux justification for any lie, any crime, any time. That's bollocks.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I genuinely haven't heard anyone complaining about the language (as such). Nobody on this thread had complained. Nobody in the hearing have complained. Who has been making too much of it? Gloria Hunniford? The baby-eating bishop of Bath and Welles?

I didn't mean shock horror they used a swear word more the questioning, should such basic language be used when describing an opinion.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I didn't mean shock horror they used a swear word more the questioning, should such basic language be used when describing an opinion.

Again, I didn't hear that either, or if I did, and as I say I cannot in truth recollect whether I did, I didn't put the same level of weight and import on it as others, perhaps yourself, appear to have done.

(Channeling Johnson, there, with my reply. )

 

[Bodian]

He is getting killed now with the reading of some of his messages, for example describing his own mask policy as 'f***ed up' and the fact that decisions were being made primarily to thwart the wishes of unions. Two 'fucks' on national radio in the space of 5 minutes.

He claims the 'f***ed up' description simply reflected a change in the perception of the role of masks, and that the perception had changed. Unbelievable.

And this is why we have public inquiries. I know some posters have queries why stuff is just being rehashed / gone over again - but the point is to get to the bottom of what people were thinking when they made decisions, so that recommendations about future actions can be made.

In relation to the perception issue, I took part in a public inquiry where Network Rail are trying to close a level crossing on safety grounds - because it is unsafe for use.

I presented a letter from them 10 years ago where they had got quite shirty about me objecting to their proposals and they had made the statement that: 'We have never said that the crossing is unsafe, and Mr Bodian's portrayal that we consider it to be dangerous is totally erroneous'. I asked them in the inquiry that as their risk assessments show that it is actually safer than 10 years ago, and 10 years ago they had said it was not unsafe and not dangerous - how could they now argue that it was so unsafe and dangerous that it had to be closed? Their response was that it had been an 'error' to say it was not unsafe 10 years ago - but that 10 years ago they were wary and frightened of using language like 'unsafe' and 'dangerous'. And yes, although it was now safer than 10 years ago, the public perception of danger had also changed - and therefore it was 'seen to be more dangerous' than before - even though it wasn't.

Basically - they were trying to close the crossing, because it was perceived to be getting more dangerous despite the data showing that it was getting safer.

 

[The Clamp]

I dont know what people expect. Any politician will try and defend themself Just look at Cummings still saying drove 30 miles to test his eyes and Blair maybe now only one saying right to go to war

I want the truth Godammit…

 

[jcdenton08]

I want the truth Godammit…

Truth? You can’t handle the truth! Baaaah! I deride your truth handling abilities! No truth handler you…



And of course the brilliant original…



What. A. Film.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

And this is why we have public inquiries. I know some posters have queries why stuff is just being rehashed / gone over again - but the point is to get to the bottom of what people were thinking when they made decisions, so that recommendations about future actions can be made.

In relation to the perception issue, I took part in a public inquiry where Network Rail are trying to close a level crossing on safety grounds - because it is unsafe for use.

I presented a letter from them 10 years ago where they had got quite shirty about me objecting to their proposals and they had made the statement that: 'We have never said that the crossing is unsafe, and Mr Bodian's portrayal that we consider it to be dangerous is totally erroneous'. I asked them in the inquiry that as their risk assessments show that it is actually safer than 10 years ago, and 10 years ago they had said it was not unsafe and not dangerous - how could they now argue that it was so unsafe and dangerous that it had to be closed? Their response was that it had been an 'error' to say it was not unsafe 10 years ago - but that 10 years ago they were wary and frightened of using language like 'unsafe' and 'dangerous'. And yes, although it was now safer than 10 years ago, the public perception of danger had also changed - and therefore it was 'seen to be more dangerous' than before - even though it wasn't.

Basically - they were trying to close the crossing, because it was perceived to be getting more dangerous despite the data showing that it was getting safer.

To be fair to Network Rail, if there were an incident at that level crossing which led to anywhere between one person and a couple of hundred people being killed, they'd then have to go to a public meeting and explain why they hadn't closed the level crossing to remove the risk of it happening.
Did they make any explanation as to how the level crossing had become safer over the course of 10 years?

 

[Bodian]

To be fair to Network Rail, if there were an incident at that level crossing which led to anywhere between one person and a couple of hundred people being killed, they'd then have to go to a public meeting and explain why they hadn't closed the level crossing to remove the risk of it happening.
Did they make any explanation as to how the level crossing had become safer over the course of 10 years?

Reduced usage - therefore fewer 'train/pedestrian interactions'
Better sightlines (vegetation removal)
Better signage/gates
Solar lights showing the crossing at night
A Stop Line.

 

[Motogull]

Even after he nearly died of the virus...

No he didn't.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Reduced usage - therefore fewer 'train/pedestrian interactions'
Better sightlines (vegetation removal)
Better signage/gates
Solar lights showing the crossing at night
A Stop Line.

Oh good, those actually make sense.
Presumably reduced usage also counts against the argument for keeping the crossing open?
I'm legitimately interested in this sort of thing by the way, I'm not just being an arsehole for the sake of it. I know the general movement is to get rid of level crossings wherever possible.
If you attended the public enquiry you'll have heard all the arguments about it so I won't insult you by going into it any further.

 

[nicko31]

So 'let the bodies pile up' was Johnson's way of raising an important issue that was in the minds of many people, er, that, er, and let me say that I apologize that parts of conversations on WhatsApp were inappropriately revealed, er to the public.

Unbelievable.

He'll twist anything.

The sad fact is we will live with the damage created by this fat lump for a long time to come

 

[Bodian]

Oh good, those actually make sense.
Presumably reduced usage also counts against the argument for keeping the crossing open?
I'm legitimately interested in this sort of thing by the way, I'm not just being an arsehole for the sake of it. I know the general movement is to get rid of level crossings wherever possible.
If you attended the public enquiry you'll have heard all the arguments about it so I won't insult you by going into it any further.

Yes, they do make sense. Reduced usage doesn't really count against keeping it open - for two reasons really. Firstly it was still popular and well used until Network Rail unlawfully padlocked the gates, and secondly - the closure request was under s118/119A Highways Act - 'for public safety'. So, that's basically what the case is determined on. There is another avenue (s118) which is that the footpath is 'not needed for public use' (ie: not used), or s119 - diverted to a different route in the interests of the public/landowner. Both those avenues were explored and dismissed, because the various legal tests wouldn't have been met. Hence relying on the 'public safety case'.

The main reasons Network Rail's case failed was that the Inspector a) concluded that their data didn't back up their claims (she didn't think it was unsafe enough to warrant closure) and b) concluded that although they had done a few things, there was loads more they could do to make it safer still that they hadn't bothered doing.

The current situation is that the level crossing has not been permanently closed legally, but is still padlocked shut whilst Network Rail have another go at demanding another public inquiry so they can try and persuade a different Inspector that the first one was wrong.

I'm afraid I know far more than is healthy for me about all of this! But I better not derail the thread (see what I did there....).

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Yes, they do make sense. Reduced usage doesn't really count against keeping it open - for two reasons really. Firstly it was still popular and well used until Network Rail unlawfully padlocked the gates, and secondly - the closure request was under s118/119A Highways Act - 'for public safety'. So, that's basically what the case is determined on. There is another avenue (s118) which is that the footpath is 'not needed for public use' (ie: not used), or s119 - diverted to a different route in the interests of the public/landowner. Both those avenues were explored and dismissed, because the various legal tests wouldn't have been met. Hence relying on the 'public safety case'.

The main reasons Network Rail's case failed was that the Inspector a) concluded that their data didn't back up their claims (she didn't think it was unsafe enough to warrant closure) and b) concluded that although they had done a few things, there was loads more they could do to make it safer still that they hadn't bothered doing.

The current situation is that the level crossing has not been permanently closed legally, but is still padlocked shut whilst Network Rail have another go at demanding another public inquiry so they can try and persuade a different Inspector that the first one was wrong.

I'm afraid I know far more than is healthy for me about all of this! But I better not derail the thread (see what I did there....).

I was thinking about it from an engineering point of view, where you might compare the risk of somebody being killed to the additional cost of diverting to the nearest alternative. In that equation use of the crossing would weigh pretty equally on both sides.
That probably doesn't come into it in the context of individual crossings, but I've done some interesting [ie vaguely disturbing] risk assessments in the past to do with derailment and vehicle incursion risks.
I'm totally going to list this exchange as about an hour of CPD, by the way.

 

[Bodian]

I was thinking about it from an engineering point of view, where you might compare the risk of somebody being killed to the additional cost of diverting to the nearest alternative. In that equation use of the crossing would weigh pretty equally on both sides.
That probably doesn't come into it in the context of individual crossings, but I've done some interesting [ie vaguely disturbing] risk assessments in the past to do with derailment and vehicle incursion risks.
I'm totally going to list this exchange as about an hour of CPD, by the way.

Indeed - cost benefit analysis is an integral part of Network Rail's narrative risk assessments. And rightly so.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

So Johnson and his band of scumbags, Sturgeon and now the Welsh Government have magically lost messages sent via whats app during covid.

Bunch of wankers.