The enquiry doesn’t ask whether total lockdown was a good idea or not, which is bizarre given the Sweden experience. The starting point of the enquiry was “why didn’t the govt lock down earlier and for longer” and the silly KC just reads out rude WhatsApp messages
I’m not sure teary can do 3. elephant t u ntil other aspects are looked it
However it is clear that it seems to be setting people with arguably equal needs against each other. All Covid discussions are like this. You can’t just blame Sage and Whitty as Crypto does because government wanted them. You can’t say the vulnerable were prioritised over business exclusively as they weren’t and still aren’t. The vulnerable are not a homogenous group, neither are school. Hildten - some did well and some didn’t. It’s clear that the impact of lockdown on diverse groups was ignored - pregnant women, ethnic minorities, the less well off, those in care who were treated disgracefully. We all need to listen to each other more.
Surely the point of these expensive Inquiries is to look at the big questions (like human rights and the curtailment of personal freedom) rather than what politician A said to civil servant B on WhatsApp.
Agree in the main. The outcome of their decisions needs to be explored but how this done without setting group against group I don’t know. The polarisation of all this stuff and other issues like Brexit and trans issues is ridiculous. However, there is some scrutiny needed of behaviour as it highlights extremely poor decision making; we can only guess how far that goes in other areas of our life.
This is being characterised as him wanting Drs on the ground to be calling up about individual patients. It’s not. There would have been a clearly defined hierarchy of who to prioritise in the event of catastrophic failure of the NHS (which allegedly happened in Manaus but I’m not really sure it did).
The BMA actually began drawing up something like this (not sure if it was published in the end). Therefore it’s not an unreasonable thing to ask plan for and I think it’s far better that it comes from the elected government than from Drs.
Would any of you blowhards like to explain in what way lockdown was an undoubted breach of civil liberties? Which specific legislation or common law principle was engaged?
The whole thing is an epic waste of money as we won't really know the answers to most of the important questions for another few years but it will placate a chunk of the public.
I would guess that it was about him having final say over a triage flow-chart that ultimately would have decided who received oxygen/ICU care, rather than deferring this to a panel of doctors/ethicists
I don’t know why he would want that responsibility tbh but the idea that he should have it is not in itself insane
It teally is too long and drawn out particularly as it puts off decisions that are needed now. But isn’t this the same with other inquiry’s like the blood scandal?
Just blow him up. I’d pay to see that. Here you are Hat Mancock, cop hold of this box, no you’ve no choice, off you go into Hyde Park, over there to that deserted bit, yes, just there. We’re all watching. Now just have a think for a bit about all those people who saw their relatives die on ipads or phones, or couldn’t even see them. Got it? Right. Ta ta.
Probably, basically all UK inquiries are a gigantic waste of time and lawyers fees. Just a totally dysfunctional system.
Norway and Sweden both had covid inquiries. They published in 2022, with targeted and detailed assessments of what worked where government response and preparedness could be improved.
We started in 2023 and will spend four years and >£200m on an absolutely useless farce
er legislation blatantly is subject to judicial review pursuant to our signature to the ECHR
legislation being illegal very much is a thing in the wide world of “how legislation works”
Oh I see what you mean, yes fair enough. Even so, pretty clearly none of the legislation was in fact illegal, as being within the bounds of a reasonable balancing & curtailment of rights response to Covid.
1
1
I’d reached the same conclusion.
Or What laz said.
0
0
Thirded.
0
0
He is pure Partridge though
11
1
I think he wanted to do thumbs up or thumbs down on each individual patient, Caesar style.
0
1
heh
0
0
heh
0
0
Heh
0
0
Heh
0
0
HEH
0
0
HEH
0
1
HEH
1
0
He is a turd on the sole of our times and belongs in chokey.
0
1
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH
1
0
The enquiry doesn’t ask whether total lockdown was a good idea or not, which is bizarre given the Sweden experience. The starting point of the enquiry was “why didn’t the govt lock down earlier and for longer” and the silly KC just reads out rude WhatsApp messages
2
0
It comes across as politically motivated nonsense that doesn’t grapple with significant issues. I haven’t listened as it’s so tedious. Where is?
1. Evidence that lockdown works
2. Legality of legislation
3. How future pandemics should be dealt with.
2
1
https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/structure-of-the-inquiry/
0
0
Well at least Counsel can boast about it on LinkedIn. That’s the main thing eh.
5
1
watching these things has taught me that if you are bare-faced enough and simply claim not to remember stuff you can get away with a fook of a lot
1
1
I’m not sure teary can do 3. elephant t u ntil other aspects are looked it
However it is clear that it seems to be setting people with arguably equal needs against each other. All Covid discussions are like this.
You can’t just blame Sage and Whitty as Crypto does because government wanted them. You can’t say the vulnerable were prioritised over business exclusively as they weren’t and still aren’t. The vulnerable are not a homogenous group, neither are school. Hildten - some did well and some didn’t. It’s clear that the impact of lockdown on diverse groups was ignored - pregnant women, ethnic minorities, the less well off, those in care who were treated disgracefully. We all need to listen to each other more.
0
0
Sorry about typos
1
0
Well a lot of people feel that way.
1
0
”2. Legality of legislation”
u wot?
1
0
Yes that’s right. Lockdown legislation was in breach of a large number of conventions and legal norms.
1
1
So was yer mum but we don't make posts about her.
0
0
r u a qualified lawyer elephant?
0
0
Where has my ☀️post gone?
1
0
Wot Elephant said.
Most of it is drivel.
Surely the point of these expensive Inquiries is to look at the big questions (like human rights and the curtailment of personal freedom) rather than what politician A said to civil servant B on WhatsApp.
1
1
he is right about the illegality of the curbs on liberty imposed by covid legislation
0
0
Crypto is an absolute moron on this subject
1
1
Agree in the main. The outcome of their decisions needs to be explored but how this done without setting group against group I don’t know. The polarisation of all this stuff and other issues like Brexit and trans issues is ridiculous. However, there is some scrutiny needed of behaviour as it highlights extremely poor decision making; we can only guess how far that goes in other areas of our life.
0
0
I think Laz is right.
This is being characterised as him wanting Drs on the ground to be calling up about individual patients. It’s not. There would have been a clearly defined hierarchy of who to prioritise in the event of catastrophic failure of the NHS (which allegedly happened in Manaus but I’m not really sure it did).
The BMA actually began drawing up something like this (not sure if it was published in the end). Therefore it’s not an unreasonable thing to ask plan for and I think it’s far better that it comes from the elected government than from Drs.
1
1
except when he agrees with me obv
high five sun, I got ur baxk
0
0
Heh. You’ll have me voting labour next!
1
0
Rare agree with Crypto. Just daft to think Hancock would make decisions on individuals.
0
1
Turd on sole? Is that a popular dish?
0
0
Would any of you blowhards like to explain in what way lockdown was an undoubted breach of civil liberties? Which specific legislation or common law principle was engaged?
1
0
The whole thing is an epic waste of money as we won't really know the answers to most of the important questions for another few years but it will placate a chunk of the public.
0
0
I would guess that it was about him having final say over a triage flow-chart that ultimately would have decided who received oxygen/ICU care, rather than deferring this to a panel of doctors/ethicists
I don’t know why he would want that responsibility tbh but the idea that he should have it is not in itself insane
1
0
'How legislation works' fail
2
0
The legislation
was enactedwas illegal0
0
there are further modules of the covid enquiry to come which will deal with lockdown and other aspects of it.
0
0
er legislation blatantly is subject to judicial review pursuant to our signature to the ECHR
legislation being illegal very much is a thing in the wide world of “how legislation works”
2
1
I read this morning that this inquiry expects to be interviewing witnesses until mid-2026
I'm sorry but what a gigantic waste of time and money. How is government in this country so totally dysfunctional.
1
1
total bollocks isn't it
1
1
It teally is too long and drawn out particularly as it puts off decisions that are needed now. But isn’t this the same with other inquiry’s like the blood scandal?
0
0
Just blow him up. I’d pay to see that. Here you are Hat Mancock, cop hold of this box, no you’ve no choice, off you go into Hyde Park, over there to that deserted bit, yes, just there. We’re all watching. Now just have a think for a bit about all those people who saw their relatives die on ipads or phones, or couldn’t even see them. Got it? Right. Ta ta.
2
1
Probably, basically all UK inquiries are a gigantic waste of time and lawyers fees. Just a totally dysfunctional system.
Norway and Sweden both had covid inquiries. They published in 2022, with targeted and detailed assessments of what worked where government response and preparedness could be improved.
We started in 2023 and will spend four years and >£200m on an absolutely useless farce
0
1
Oh I see what you mean, yes fair enough. Even so, pretty clearly none of the legislation was in fact illegal, as being within the bounds of a reasonable balancing & curtailment of rights response to Covid.
0
0
Benji yes one could certainly argue large amounts of the lockdown legislation was unlawful. Take a while to write the essay. You would start with
0
1
I agree with pancakes re inquiry.
Join the discussion