|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 19, 2021 20:35:44 GMT
Why does he look so awkward?
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 20, 2021 16:22:27 GMT
Wonder if anyone will be sacked for acting unlawfully? If I did in my job I would be.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 20, 2021 17:30:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 20, 2021 23:51:04 GMT
One big 'government' story JHD hasn't posted so I thought I'd be public spirited
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 21, 2021 0:16:50 GMT
It's worth noting that the 'unlawfully' relates to the failure to publish information about the awarding of some of the contracts, at least as fully as required and within the required timeframe of 30 days (which is of course important so we know what is done with our money.)
But it was not related to the awarding of the contracts themselves, though, unsurprisingly, some seem to be attempting to imply otherwise.
Indeed, and the government could have simply conceded that point rather than be dragged through court...costing the taxpayer £200,000 in the process. I'm not sure I can remember the last time a government department easily conceded they'd got something wrong?* It must have happened sometime...
"However, the judge dismissed the Good Law Project's argument that there had been a department-wide "policy of de-prioritising compliance" with the law and guidance. "
That would have been far more serious and politically damaging, if proven.
* EDIT: Yes I do. Jim Hacker did it once in the Commons. Humphrey must have been appalled.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 21, 2021 15:29:28 GMT
Absolutely useless.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Feb 21, 2021 17:07:28 GMT
Him calling for Hancock’s resignation would accomplish nothing and changing the Health Secretary in the middle of a pandemic isn’t a good idea. Also this judgement really isn’t the smoking gun that some (especially Twitter) seem to think it is. All it finds is the the Health Department didn’t submit all the necessary documents pertaining to procurement contracts within the legally required timeframe. It doesn’t find anything questioning the legitimacy of the contracts themselves. Personally my main frustration is the government stubbornly refused to admit any fault, leading to it going to court and costing the taxpayer £200,000 in legal fees. But stubbornness isn’t exactly a resignation offence. This blog from a legal commenter goes into more detail on what the ruling means generally and why it doesn’t need to have personal consequences for anyone: davidallengreen.com/2021/02/a-government-department-or-minister-has-been-found-to-have-acted-unlawfully-or-illegally-but-what-does-this-mean-and-what-does-it-not-mean/
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 21, 2021 17:45:16 GMT
Him calling for Hancock’s resignation would accomplish nothing and changing the Health Secretary in the middle of a pandemic isn’t a good idea. We changed PMs during a war. Also this just demonstrates the lack of accountability that is the hallmark of this government, & now the opposition is weak when it should be strong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2021 17:46:13 GMT
Him calling for Hancock’s resignation would accomplish nothing and changing the Health Secretary in the middle of a pandemic isn’t a good idea. Also this judgement really isn’t the smoking gun that some (especially Twitter) seem to think it is. All it finds is the the Health Department didn’t submit all the necessary documents pertaining to procurement contracts within the legally required timeframe. It doesn’t find anything questioning the legitimacy of the contracts themselves. Personally my main frustration is the government stubbornly refused to admit any fault, leading to it going to court and costing the taxpayer £200,000 in legal fees. But stubbornness isn’t exactly a resignation offence. This blog from a legal commenter goes into more detail on what the ruling means generally and why it doesn’t need to have personal consequences for anyone: davidallengreen.com/2021/02/a-government-department-or-minister-has-been-found-to-have-acted-unlawfully-or-illegally-but-what-does-this-mean-and-what-does-it-not-mean/Agreed. I actually admire Starmer for his stance on this; the virus is the enemy here.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 21, 2021 18:02:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 22, 2021 22:12:29 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
So I'll do my bit for the historical record, from the BBC:
"A new four-step plan to ease England's lockdown could see all legal limits on social contact lifted by 21 June, if strict conditions are met."
or for fans of links to 'The Guardian', who will probably prefer how they put it:
"Boris Johnson says more deaths inevitable whenever lockdown lifts as he sets out roadmap for England"
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Feb 22, 2021 22:20:22 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
So I'll do my bit for the historical record, from the BBC:
"A new four-step plan to ease England's lockdown could see all legal limits on social contact lifted by 21 June, if strict conditions are met."
or for fans of links to 'The Guardian', who will probably prefer how they put it:
"Boris Johnson says more deaths inevitable whenever lockdown lifts as he sets out roadmap for England"
Don’t know about you number13, but I’m being quietly optimistic about the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 22, 2021 22:35:54 GMT
Him calling for Hancock’s resignation would accomplish nothing and changing the Health Secretary in the middle of a pandemic isn’t a good idea. We changed PMs during a war. Also this just demonstrates the lack of accountability that is the hallmark of this government, & now the opposition is weak when it should be strong. I'm so pleased you approve of the splendid example set to future generations by the appointment of Winston Churchill as PM. I do too of course, what a hero, the right man for the hour who united left and right in a national government, and that change of PMs and government saved the nation and thus quite possibly, the world.
But right now, we are hopefully well on the way to winning this virus "war" (to follow your analogy) and it's going to be in no small part thanks to the decisions taken last spring at the Department of Health. Whatever other mistakes were made, the UK's vaccine programme didn't happen by accident.
So why change the Health Secretary? If he was the one to blame for bad paperwork, surely he must also be the one to praise for the vaccine rollout? Which do you think the public will value more?
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 22, 2021 22:59:10 GMT
We changed PMs during a war. Also this just demonstrates the lack of accountability that is the hallmark of this government, & now the opposition is weak when it should be strong. I'm so pleased you approve of the splendid example set to future generations by the appointment of Winston Churchill as PM. I do too of course, what a hero, the right man for the hour who united left and right in a national government, and that change of PMs and government saved the nation and thus quite possibly, the world.
But right now, we are hopefully well on the way to winning this virus "war" (to follow your analogy) and it's going to be in no small part thanks to the decisions taken last spring at the Department of Health. Whatever other mistakes were made, the UK's vaccine programme didn't happen by accident.
So why change the Health Secretary? If he was the one to blame for bad paperwork, surely he must also be the one to praise for the vaccine rollout? Which do you think the public will value more?
Praising the vaccine rollout: Yes. Forgiving the upteem-quadgillion other blunders over the last year because they have this: I think you'd concede that's maybe a bit much.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 22, 2021 23:03:49 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
So I'll do my bit for the historical record, from the BBC:
"A new four-step plan to ease England's lockdown could see all legal limits on social contact lifted by 21 June, if strict conditions are met."
or for fans of links to 'The Guardian', who will probably prefer how they put it:
"Boris Johnson says more deaths inevitable whenever lockdown lifts as he sets out roadmap for England"
Don’t know about you number13, but I’m being quietly optimistic about the whole thing. Yes, me too. They seem very confident now about how fast the vaccine rollout can reach all UK adults don't they. Thank goodness. I'm just hoping the 'unlocking' process goes as well as they can expect before then.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 22, 2021 23:13:42 GMT
I'm so pleased you approve of the splendid example set to future generations by the appointment of Winston Churchill as PM. I do too of course, what a hero, the right man for the hour who united left and right in a national government, and that change of PMs and government saved the nation and thus quite possibly, the world.
But right now, we are hopefully well on the way to winning this virus "war" (to follow your analogy) and it's going to be in no small part thanks to the decisions taken last spring at the Department of Health. Whatever other mistakes were made, the UK's vaccine programme didn't happen by accident.
So why change the Health Secretary? If he was the one to blame for bad paperwork, surely he must also be the one to praise for the vaccine rollout? Which do you think the public will value more?
Praising the vaccine rollout: Yes. Forgiving the upteem-quadgillion other blunders over the last year because they have this: I think you'd concede that's maybe a bit much.
I was replying to the idea that he should resign now specifically because of last week's judgement. While important, it doesn't seem the most important thing which has happened on his watch, good or bad, that's all.
(And I couldn't resist commenting on the Churchill analogy. Not one I expected to see.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2021 23:13:52 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
Absolutely scandalous suggestion. Anyway, I'm off to look again at the hilarious video of Boris Johnson cleaning down a plastic chair.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Feb 22, 2021 23:30:53 GMT
Very quiet on here again today isn't it? Is this thread just possibly selective about how it "watches" the government?
Absolutely scandalous suggestion. Anyway, I'm off to look again at the hilarious video of Boris Johnson cleaning down a plastic chair. Yes, what a hoot that was! Though I must say I still prefer the one of him stuck on the zip-wire as Mayor, I do like the classics.
(Seriously for a second, some very few politicians have the gift for doing those awful 'photo-ops' they all have to do and only their opponents think they look ridiculous doing it! With others, everyone thinks it! It's a thankless task. )
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Feb 23, 2021 0:18:49 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2021 1:02:45 GMT
We changed PMs during a war. Also this just demonstrates the lack of accountability that is the hallmark of this government, & now the opposition is weak when it should be strong. I'm so pleased you approve of the splendid example set to future generations by the appointment of Winston Churchill as PM. I do too of course, what a hero, the right man for the hour who united left and right in a national government, and that change of PMs and government saved the nation and thus quite possibly, the world.
But right now, we are hopefully well on the way to winning this virus "war" (to follow your analogy) and it's going to be in no small part thanks to the decisions taken last spring at the Department of Health. Whatever other mistakes were made, the UK's vaccine programme didn't happen by accident.
So why change the Health Secretary? If he was the one to blame for bad paperwork, surely he must also be the one to praise for the vaccine rollout? Which do you think the public will value more?
Sorry, 120 thousand dead aren't here to argue the point and I'll never see my twin brother again to discuss it with him either so I've got no real interest in point scoring. I'm not anti-Tory here. I'm against the people who watched this virus sweep West across Asia then Europe KNOWING it was coming here and kept the country (read: economy) open until the last second. Many people would still be with us now if we shut down just a week or two earlier knowing what we saw in Italy and Spain after China. I'm not having that just filed away under "whatever other mistakes were made". We're an Island. We were one of the last countries in the West to have the virus hit and yet we still got caught unprepared. We had every advantage and we pissed them away. I'd play poker with this government any day. We've got one of the highest death rates per capita in the world (worse than even the US under Trump that we're so eager to sneer at here because the bare numbers are higher even though the percentages show we did a lot worse here. Is the vaccine rollout a success? Yes, absolutely. But is it enough to hide the fact more people per thousand here have grieving families than nearly any country on Earth? Never. Never. No. If we locked down earlier, as was being called for by the scientific community (and even many businesses - I was sent home 2 weeks before "official lockdown"), then I might be able to talk to Michael again. Maybe not. I can never know. But it's a scientific certainty that lives would have been saved had different decisions been made earlier. Too little too late. Not interested in cronyism debates and the like. There'll be time for it - it's part of the game - but blood doesn't wash off the hands as easily as corruption. It's not "my side would have done better" it's "You have to answer for the dead - and why there didn't need to be so many". Since silly Churchill comparisons seem to be in order - why did we have a Gallipoli and not a Dunkirk?
|
|