Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yet again our government found guilty of breaking the law. Yet still they refuse to publish the vip list of so called PPE suppliers. Why? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/19/matt-hancock-acted-unlawfully-failing-publish-covid-contracts-high-court" Knob Jockey Boris and his wannabee's..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Took longer than I thought. And I was way out. " wasn’t on my list either | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? " Nope. Just thought from another thread this may have landed a lot earlier | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? " Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! " I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory." I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. " Course you did  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! " Even after breaking the law they will still come out with some bollocks to defend them. It's generally quite amusing watching the lengths they go too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did "Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) " How shocking they didn’t publish 30 days before closing the tender .... it’s not like the whole world was clambering for ppe
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
"Right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I mean obviously if it was the eu who had done this,the usual suspects would be maintaining a different silence on it aswell. Like I said.Quite embarrassing." Stop getting embarrassed by others (none) actions. That a wasted emotion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right. "https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157 About 19 posts up from the bottom You are very welcome | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I mean obviously if it was the eu who had done this,the usual suspects would be maintaining a different silence on it aswell. Like I said.Quite embarrassing. Stop getting embarrassed by others (none) actions. That a wasted emotion. " I'll shut up about it now. It is quite unfair of me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I mean obviously if it was the eu who had done this,the usual suspects would be maintaining a different silence on it aswell. Like I said.Quite embarrassing. Stop getting embarrassed by others (none) actions. That a wasted emotion. I'll shut up about it now. It is quite unfair of me" Promise? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome "Everyone cam see what you all did. You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it. That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law But priorities etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome
Everyone cam see what you all did.
You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it.
That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law
But priorities etc
"Or it was a moments levity in these times. We are allowed levity? Or do we have to just beat ourselves up all the time. It’s no difference really from all the barbed comments about when you say people will defend it? (When it’s not actually been defended) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry OP. Taken this one right off track. My main point. If they delivered the goods then I’m ok (ish) If they didn’t. Matt Hancock should be fucked off. " Well he should have been fucked off anyway a long time ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome
Everyone cam see what you all did.
You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it.
That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law
But priorities etc
"Why didn’t you start a thread sooner? Priorities? Or you didn’t know about it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome
Everyone cam see what you all did.
You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it.
That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law
But priorities etc
Why didn’t you start a thread sooner? Priorities?
Or you didn’t know about it?
"When a thread is posted that’s critical of what our friend here stands against. You get the usual barbed comments about how no doubt someone from the “usual subjects” will be along to defend it. There is no difference in what was mentioned in that thread. But do as I say not what do etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome
Everyone cam see what you all did.
You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it.
That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law
But priorities etc
Why didn’t you start a thread sooner? Priorities?
Or you didn’t know about it?
"Because you and your little clique were having a laugh about it. You not defending the gmnt on this one? Its normally your 1st point of call to dispute they have done anything wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome
Everyone cam see what you all did.
You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it.
That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law
But priorities etc
Why didn’t you start a thread sooner? Priorities?
Or you didn’t know about it?
When a thread is posted that’s critical of what our friend here stands against. You get the usual barbed comments about how no doubt someone from the “usual subjects” will be along to defend it.
There is no difference in what was mentioned in that thread.
But do as I say not what do etc "I keep saying I'll drop it but I've clearly touched a nerve. I do apologise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome
Everyone cam see what you all did.
You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it.
That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law
But priorities etc
Why didn’t you start a thread sooner? Priorities?
Or you didn’t know about it?
When a thread is posted that’s critical of what our friend here stands against. You get the usual barbed comments about how no doubt someone from the “usual subjects” will be along to defend it.
There is no difference in what was mentioned in that thread.
But do as I say not what do etc
I keep saying I'll drop it but I've clearly touched a nerve.
I do apologise. "No nerve touched just pointing out hypocrisy. However now you have apologised. Apology accepted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome
Everyone cam see what you all did.
You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it.
That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law
But priorities etc
Why didn’t you start a thread sooner? Priorities?
Or you didn’t know about it?
When a thread is posted that’s critical of what our friend here stands against. You get the usual barbed comments about how no doubt someone from the “usual subjects” will be along to defend it.
There is no difference in what was mentioned in that thread.
But do as I say not what do etc
I keep saying I'll drop it but I've clearly touched a nerve.
I do apologise.
No nerve touched just pointing out hypocrisy.
However now you have apologised.
Apology accepted. "Of course No whatabouttery whatsoever | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back on track. How Hancock has stayed in post is beyond me. " So boris was unaware of this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you saying it’s ok then? Yeah there was a little clique of them laughing about it before. They were trying to guess who was gonna post about it. They are apparently quite happy for the gmnt to rip them offand let's face it none if them are actually gonna be critical of them are they? Quite embarrassing really but Tories gotta tory. I’m not a Tory and I brought it up at the time. Don’t feel embarrassed mate it’s ok. Course you did
Go and read the thread then you will see I said there was something in the “newsphere”
Right.
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1125157
About 19 posts up from the bottom
You are very welcome
Everyone cam see what you all did.
You were laughing and joking about you would start the thread about it.
That was obviously more important than the gmnt breaking the law
But priorities etc
Why didn’t you start a thread sooner? Priorities?
Or you didn’t know about it?
When a thread is posted that’s critical of what our friend here stands against. You get the usual barbed comments about how no doubt someone from the “usual subjects” will be along to defend it.
There is no difference in what was mentioned in that thread.
But do as I say not what do etc
I keep saying I'll drop it but I've clearly touched a nerve.
I do apologise.
No nerve touched just pointing out hypocrisy.
However now you have apologised.
Apology accepted.
Of course
No whatabouttery whatsoever
"So much for dropping it. I have accepted your humble apology. Let’s move on Lionel | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back on track. How Hancock has stayed in post is beyond me. So boris was unaware of this?" Hancock’s a lot easier to get rid of than Boris and would be a useful fall guy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back on track. How Hancock has stayed in post is beyond me. So boris was unaware of this? Hancock’s a lot easier to get rid of than Boris and would be a useful fall guy. " That's not what I asked. Was boris aware of this? It's been evident for months they would hang Hancock out to dry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back on track. How Hancock has stayed in post is beyond me. " Boris doesn't sack ministers because of fucking awful performance if they blindly stand by and protect him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back on track. How Hancock has stayed in post is beyond me. So boris was unaware of this? Hancock’s a lot easier to get rid of than Boris and would be a useful fall guy. That's not what I asked. Was boris aware of this? It's been evident for months they would hang Hancock out to dry." How am I meant to know if Boris was aware of it at the time? Honestly Lionel you give me too much credit sometimes I’m a guy from leafy Buckinghamshire who works from home. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back on track. How Hancock has stayed in post is beyond me. Boris doesn't sack ministers because of fucking awful performance if they blindly stand by and protect him. " It would be a very empty cabinet if he did | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back on track. How Hancock has stayed in post is beyond me. So boris was unaware of this? Hancock’s a lot easier to get rid of than Boris and would be a useful fall guy. That's not what I asked. Was boris aware of this? It's been evident for months they would hang Hancock out to dry. How am I meant to know if Boris was aware of it at the time? Honestly Lionel you give me too much credit sometimes I’m a guy from leafy Buckinghamshire who works from home. " Ha ha Right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE " And the fact that they acted unlawfully doesnt matter obviously. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE And the fact that they acted unlawfully doesnt matter obviously. " Isn’t it the fact they have acted unlawfully by not publishing the signed contracts within the specified period? Not the contracts themselves (however something does stink) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of."I’m a one man band. I like to play my fiddle while Rome burns. No clique will have me.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of."You are clearly not looking hard enough. What should happen now? Anything? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of."Do you think Hancock has to go ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE And the fact that they acted unlawfully doesnt matter obviously. Isn’t it the fact they have acted unlawfully by not publishing the signed contracts within the specified period? Not the contracts themselves (however something does stink) " The last time I read about it something like 50%of the records hadn't been published Reece mogg was asked about it in parliament and simply refused to answer. The good law project are pressing them to publish everything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of.
You are clearly not looking hard enough.
What should happen now?
Anything?"Well that depends on how the law works in this sense. I'm happy to see anyone prosecuted if they're found guilty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back on track. How Hancock has stayed in post is beyond me. Boris doesn't sack ministers because of fucking awful performance if they blindly stand by and protect him. It would be a very empty cabinet if he did " That's so true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of.
You are clearly not looking hard enough.
What should happen now?
Anything?
Well that depends on how the law works in this sense. I'm happy to see anyone prosecuted if they're found guilty."I think they just need to publish everything but they seem strangely reluctant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of.
You are clearly not looking hard enough.
What should happen now?
Anything?
Well that depends on how the law works in this sense. I'm happy to see anyone prosecuted if they're found guilty.
I think they just need to publish everything but they seem strangely reluctant. "From what I read earlier (I only scanned) they only need to publish redacted copies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE And the fact that they acted unlawfully doesnt matter obviously. Isn’t it the fact they have acted unlawfully by not publishing the signed contracts within the specified period? Not the contracts themselves (however something does stink) "
Which is all the more puzzling . What was the fox killing lawyer going to do in the 30 days after the contract was signed / stop the order and delay the ppe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of.
You are clearly not looking hard enough.
What should happen now?
Anything?
Well that depends on how the law works in this sense. I'm happy to see anyone prosecuted if they're found guilty.
I think they just need to publish everything but they seem strangely reluctant.
From what I read earlier (I only scanned) they only need to publish redacted copies."They are calling for a judge led enquiry into the whole affair I'm presuming the gmnt are using public money to defend this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of."You sure about that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of.
You are clearly not looking hard enough.
What should happen now?
Anything?
Well that depends on how the law works in this sense. I'm happy to see anyone prosecuted if they're found guilty.
I think they just need to publish everything but they seem strangely reluctant.
From what I read earlier (I only scanned) they only need to publish redacted copies.
They are calling for a judge led enquiry into the whole affair
I'm presuming the gmnt are using public money to defend this?"They may be calling for that. Not sure if that will happen. I'm sure I read that the actual law broke was to not publish redacted copies | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of.
You are clearly not looking hard enough.
What should happen now?
Anything?
Well that depends on how the law works in this sense. I'm happy to see anyone prosecuted if they're found guilty.
I think they just need to publish everything but they seem strangely reluctant.
From what I read earlier (I only scanned) they only need to publish redacted copies.
They are calling for a judge led enquiry into the whole affair
I'm presuming the gmnt are using public money to defend this?
They may be calling for that. Not sure if that will happen. I'm sure I read that the actual law broke was to not publish redacted copies"It should happen..clearly there are issues there around cronyism etc. And we arent talking a few grand here..we are talking billions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd just like to point out that I'm in no ones clique
I also can't see anyone defending this here. They were found guilty. End of.
You are clearly not looking hard enough.
What should happen now?
Anything?
Well that depends on how the law works in this sense. I'm happy to see anyone prosecuted if they're found guilty.
I think they just need to publish everything but they seem strangely reluctant. "Two words: Paper trail!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a feeling Matt Hancock’s neighbour may be up late tonight using his shredder. " So funny that it might be true! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE " People possibly died because they went to companies or individuals they knew as friends and associates rather than proper approved suppliers. My mate down the pub could have said he’s got some in the back of his van and he would have picked up a few million for that. You don’t ring the plumber or the dentist when your house is on fire. To then hide the actual list is blatant spin on something that was deadly. Hancock would not hide that list without Boris approval. If it’s all an honest attempt to source PPE then why is it hidden? We all know how bad it was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE People possibly died because they went to companies or individuals they knew as friends and associates rather than proper approved suppliers. My mate down the pub could have said he’s got some in the back of his van and he would have picked up a few million for that. You don’t ring the plumber or the dentist when your house is on fire. To then hide the actual list is blatant spin on something that was deadly. Hancock would not hide that list without Boris approval. If it’s all an honest attempt to source PPE then why is it hidden? We all know how bad it was. " People died because of the companies chosen to get ppe quickly ? A deadly list? Nonsense, and smacks of overreaching on the actual facts of the situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE People possibly died because they went to companies or individuals they knew as friends and associates rather than proper approved suppliers. My mate down the pub could have said he’s got some in the back of his van and he would have picked up a few million for that. You don’t ring the plumber or the dentist when your house is on fire. To then hide the actual list is blatant spin on something that was deadly. Hancock would not hide that list without Boris approval. If it’s all an honest attempt to source PPE then why is it hidden? We all know how bad it was. People died because of the companies chosen to get ppe quickly ? A deadly list? Nonsense, and smacks of overreaching on the actual facts of the situation." Really? I don’t think so The NHS were warned over a year prior to the pandemic that we didn’t have enough PPE To then try and source through new starts ups and and finance pals even a jewellery importer was reckless incompetance. Some of the NHS staff did not have suitable PPE and some of those staff died. Whether directly linked I certainly can’t prove it . But yes I will definitely allege that some people in this country will have died through this total incompetence. Care homes were chronically short of PPE leading to the virus being spread. I suspect if and when we see the details there will be some shocking lack of care in this. Like I said if there’s nothing to hide . This isn’t a big admin job it’s names and addresses along with value of contract. No one was too busy to compile the details and yet they are still being withheld . Where’s the VIP list ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE People possibly died because they went to companies or individuals they knew as friends and associates rather than proper approved suppliers. My mate down the pub could have said he’s got some in the back of his van and he would have picked up a few million for that. You don’t ring the plumber or the dentist when your house is on fire. To then hide the actual list is blatant spin on something that was deadly. Hancock would not hide that list without Boris approval. If it’s all an honest attempt to source PPE then why is it hidden? We all know how bad it was. People died because of the companies chosen to get ppe quickly ? A deadly list? Nonsense, and smacks of overreaching on the actual facts of the situation. Really? I don’t think so The NHS were warned over a year prior to the pandemic that we didn’t have enough PPE To then try and source through new starts ups and and finance pals even a jewellery importer was reckless incompetance. Some of the NHS staff did not have suitable PPE and some of those staff died. Whether directly linked I certainly can’t prove it . But yes I will definitely allege that some people in this country will have died through this total incompetence. Care homes were chronically short of PPE leading to the virus being spread. I suspect if and when we see the details there will be some shocking lack of care in this. Like I said if there’s nothing to hide . This isn’t a big admin job it’s names and addresses along with value of contract. No one was too busy to compile the details and yet they are still being withheld . Where’s the VIP list ? " You do realize we have had the whole ppe debate before? every government in the world was trying to get hold of ppe anyway they could .Do you not remember the public outcry in all media outlets about the lack of ppe.Well the government got it any way it could, so far the only wrong doing is not publishing the contracts before the 30 days nothing more ,i know i few of you would love to hear someone had his hand in the cookie jar but that is not what they have been found guilty of and you will have to contain your excitement a while longer. If there has been wrong doing then im all for prosecution with the full weight of the law but get it into context they have only been guilty of not publishing the contracts within 30 days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE People possibly died because they went to companies or individuals they knew as friends and associates rather than proper approved suppliers. My mate down the pub could have said he’s got some in the back of his van and he would have picked up a few million for that. You don’t ring the plumber or the dentist when your house is on fire. To then hide the actual list is blatant spin on something that was deadly. Hancock would not hide that list without Boris approval. If it’s all an honest attempt to source PPE then why is it hidden? We all know how bad it was. People died because of the companies chosen to get ppe quickly ? A deadly list? Nonsense, and smacks of overreaching on the actual facts of the situation. Really? I don’t think so The NHS were warned over a year prior to the pandemic that we didn’t have enough PPE To then try and source through new starts ups and and finance pals even a jewellery importer was reckless incompetance. Some of the NHS staff did not have suitable PPE and some of those staff died. Whether directly linked I certainly can’t prove it . But yes I will definitely allege that some people in this country will have died through this total incompetence. Care homes were chronically short of PPE leading to the virus being spread. I suspect if and when we see the details there will be some shocking lack of care in this. Like I said if there’s nothing to hide . This isn’t a big admin job it’s names and addresses along with value of contract. No one was too busy to compile the details and yet they are still being withheld . Where’s the VIP list ? You do realize we have had the whole ppe debate before? every government in the world was trying to get hold of ppe anyway they could .Do you not remember the public outcry in all media outlets about the lack of ppe.Well the government got it any way it could, so far the only wrong doing is not publishing the contracts before the 30 days nothing more ,i know i few of you would love to hear someone had his hand in the cookie jar but that is not what they have been found guilty of and you will have to contain your excitement a while longer. If there has been wrong doing then im all for prosecution with the full weight of the law but get it into context they have only been guilty of not publishing the contracts within 30 days. " Yes it’s trivia that a jeweller can give a £21m commission to a trader for one deal . Given that he has no experience or knowledge of PPE I’d say that’s pretty corrupt. Whether they can prove it is another thing. I doubt if anyone will be prosecuted as it will be too much smoke and mirrors. I can’t see any of this cabinet resigning either. My complaint is the disgusting way it was handled if the accusations of a VIP list are correct. New start ups getting contracts etc etc . The fact that so much of what was supplied was unusable on top of the cost is outrageous . To say all they’ve done is not publish a list is being generous to the point of apathy. If it’s the Cabinet or the civil service or both they should be held to account and sacked if found wanting. Billions spent without basic common sense. Also go after those who failed to supply if it can be proven. Which again I doubt. I suspect Labour would have been equally incompetent but that just shows how bad our choice in leaders has become. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. needed PPE . There was a global scramble for PPE. Huge pressure was put on government for more and more PPE U.K. got PPE People possibly died because they went to companies or individuals they knew as friends and associates rather than proper approved suppliers. My mate down the pub could have said he’s got some in the back of his van and he would have picked up a few million for that. You don’t ring the plumber or the dentist when your house is on fire. To then hide the actual list is blatant spin on something that was deadly. Hancock would not hide that list without Boris approval. If it’s all an honest attempt to source PPE then why is it hidden? We all know how bad it was. People died because of the companies chosen to get ppe quickly ? A deadly list? Nonsense, and smacks of overreaching on the actual facts of the situation. Really? I don’t think so The NHS were warned over a year prior to the pandemic that we didn’t have enough PPE To then try and source through new starts ups and and finance pals even a jewellery importer was reckless incompetance. Some of the NHS staff did not have suitable PPE and some of those staff died. Whether directly linked I certainly can’t prove it . But yes I will definitely allege that some people in this country will have died through this total incompetence. Care homes were chronically short of PPE leading to the virus being spread. I suspect if and when we see the details there will be some shocking lack of care in this. Like I said if there’s nothing to hide . This isn’t a big admin job it’s names and addresses along with value of contract. No one was too busy to compile the details and yet they are still being withheld . Where’s the VIP list ? You do realize we have had the whole ppe debate before? every government in the world was trying to get hold of ppe anyway they could .Do you not remember the public outcry in all media outlets about the lack of ppe.Well the government got it any way it could, so far the only wrong doing is not publishing the contracts before the 30 days nothing more ,i know i few of you would love to hear someone had his hand in the cookie jar but that is not what they have been found guilty of and you will have to contain your excitement a while longer. If there has been wrong doing then im all for prosecution with the full weight of the law but get it into context they have only been guilty of not publishing the contracts within 30 days. Yes it’s trivia that a jeweller can give a £21m commission to a trader for one deal . Given that he has no experience or knowledge of PPE I’d say that’s pretty corrupt. Whether they can prove it is another thing. I doubt if anyone will be prosecuted as it will be too much smoke and mirrors. I can’t see any of this cabinet resigning either. My complaint is the disgusting way it was handled if the accusations of a VIP list are correct. New start ups getting contracts etc etc . The fact that so much of what was supplied was unusable on top of the cost is outrageous . To say all they’ve done is not publish a list is being generous to the point of apathy. If it’s the Cabinet or the civil service or both they should be held to account and sacked if found wanting. Billions spent without basic common sense. Also go after those who failed to supply if it can be proven. Which again I doubt. I suspect Labour would have been equally incompetent but that just shows how bad our choice in leaders has become. " There was a copy of the VIP list floating round somewhere. It basically said it was s great opportunity to make some money. They are that brazen, they know nothing will be done. The ny times have done a great piece on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To say all they’ve done is not publish a list is being generous to the point of apathy. No its not, it is all they have been found guilty of so far but as usual some on here want to hang draw and quarter people before any facts are known. If there has been corruption then prosecute but as far as im aware innocent until proved guilty still exists in the uk. " Do you think MPs should have morals or do you think they can do what they like without ever being held to account? Serious question as you’re an intelligent man and know this stinks like hell. Just because something isn’t proven in a court doesn’t make it right. The fact that MPs are not being held to account in this case is horrific as the failures along with the cost are enormous. It’s bad government whatever way you look at it. It’s virtually impossible to prosecute an MP proven by the lack of court cases on the expenses scandal. It wasn’t illegal they claimed and the paid the money back . If it wasn’t illegal then why pay the money back? If we look hard enough I’m sure there will be a couple of labour MPs somewhere in the latest pocket lining trough so I’m not shouting Tory I’m shouting disgusting behaviour by our House of Commons and yet again they can walk freely away with their nice pension, consultancy and advisor roles. It’s time we cleaned up our Parliament or we are heading towards the American way of money talks every time. How long before a PM says he wants to appoint judges ! If we don’t hold our leaders to account we are in trouble. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If this had been a Labour minister then the papers would be screaming for their head. " Could you imagine corbyn presiding over 1 of the worst death rates in Europe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Could you imagine corbyn presiding over 1 of the worst death rates in Europe?" Totally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If this had been a Labour minister then the papers would be screaming for their head. Could you imagine corbyn presiding over 1 of the worst death rates in Europe?" yes can’t you ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If this had been a Labour minister then the papers would be screaming for their head. Could you imagine corbyn presiding over 1 of the worst death rates in Europe?yes can’t you ?" And what do you think the reaction would be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If this had been a Labour minister then the papers would be screaming for their head. Could you imagine corbyn presiding over 1 of the worst death rates in Europe?yes can’t you ? And what do you think the reaction would be?" the same as it is now but you defending him or would you be calling for his head like you do blowjobs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If this had been a Labour minister then the papers would be screaming for their head. Could you imagine corbyn presiding over 1 of the worst death rates in Europe?yes can’t you ? And what do you think the reaction would be?the same as it is now but you defending him or would you be calling for his head like you do blowjobs " No it wouldn't be the same at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If this had been a Labour minister then the papers would be screaming for their head. Could you imagine corbyn presiding over 1 of the worst death rates in Europe?yes can’t you ? And what do you think the reaction would be?the same as it is now but you defending him or would you be calling for his head like you do blowjobs No it wouldn't be the same at all." so what would it of been then ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If this had been a Labour minister then the papers would be screaming for their head. Could you imagine corbyn presiding over 1 of the worst death rates in Europe?yes can’t you ? And what do you think the reaction would be?the same as it is now but you defending him or would you be calling for his head like you do blowjobs No it wouldn't be the same at all. so what would it of been then ?" ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) How shocking they didn’t publish 30 days before closing the tender .... it’s not like the whole world was clambering for ppe
"If they hadn’t ignored the findings of the Pandemic Test done several years earlier (Tory Govt), they could have stockpiled sufficient PPE at a fraction of the cost. I mean do we vote for Govts to deal with crises in a last minute fashion, or would we rather they had ‘followed the science’ when it was cost effective? Just asking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) How shocking they didn’t publish 30 days before closing the tender .... it’s not like the whole world was clambering for ppe
If they hadn’t ignored the findings of the Pandemic Test done several years earlier (Tory Govt), they could have stockpiled sufficient PPE at a fraction of the cost. I mean do we vote for Govts to deal with crises in a last minute fashion, or would we rather they had ‘followed the science’ when it was cost effective? Just asking."I know you only see the bad in the government but as you obviously missed it the WHOLE world has serious issues with lack of ppe, most countries stopped companies from exporting to others, it's funny how you can praise the nhs for the vaccine roll out yet you blame the government for the ppe shortage, strangely its nhs buyers that source ppe, its care home managers that source ppe for themselves, buying ppe is not the responsibility of the government, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) How shocking they didn’t publish 30 days before closing the tender .... it’s not like the whole world was clambering for ppe
If they hadn’t ignored the findings of the Pandemic Test done several years earlier (Tory Govt), they could have stockpiled sufficient PPE at a fraction of the cost. I mean do we vote for Govts to deal with crises in a last minute fashion, or would we rather they had ‘followed the science’ when it was cost effective? Just asking.
I know you only see the bad in the government but as you obviously missed it the WHOLE world has serious issues with lack of ppe, most countries stopped companies from exporting to others, it's funny how you can praise the nhs for the vaccine roll out yet you blame the government for the ppe shortage, strangely its nhs buyers that source ppe, its care home managers that source ppe for themselves, buying ppe is not the responsibility of the government, "As the previous to you poster stated. The PPE shortage in this country was highlighted to the government a couple of years before the pandemic when the system was audited. It clearly stated we need to increase stocks in case of pandemics YES YEARS BEFORE! The government agencies ignored the findings and decided not to spend the money. This was on the Conservative government watch. There was lots of cheap PPE available then. Bad government . How is Procurement for the NHS not the responsibility of the government ?? It’s not a public company. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) How shocking they didn’t publish 30 days before closing the tender .... it’s not like the whole world was clambering for ppe
If they hadn’t ignored the findings of the Pandemic Test done several years earlier (Tory Govt), they could have stockpiled sufficient PPE at a fraction of the cost. I mean do we vote for Govts to deal with crises in a last minute fashion, or would we rather they had ‘followed the science’ when it was cost effective? Just asking.
I know you only see the bad in the government but as you obviously missed it the WHOLE world has serious issues with lack of ppe, most countries stopped companies from exporting to others, it's funny how you can praise the nhs for the vaccine roll out yet you blame the government for the ppe shortage, strangely its nhs buyers that source ppe, its care home managers that source ppe for themselves, buying ppe is not the responsibility of the government, "So the health department takes mo responsibility in procuring medical equipment? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) How shocking they didn’t publish 30 days before closing the tender .... it’s not like the whole world was clambering for ppe
If they hadn’t ignored the findings of the Pandemic Test done several years earlier (Tory Govt), they could have stockpiled sufficient PPE at a fraction of the cost. I mean do we vote for Govts to deal with crises in a last minute fashion, or would we rather they had ‘followed the science’ when it was cost effective? Just asking.
I know you only see the bad in the government but as you obviously missed it the WHOLE world has serious issues with lack of ppe, most countries stopped companies from exporting to others, it's funny how you can praise the nhs for the vaccine roll out yet you blame the government for the ppe shortage, strangely its nhs buyers that source ppe, its care home managers that source ppe for themselves, buying ppe is not the responsibility of the government,
As the previous to you poster stated.
The PPE shortage in this country was highlighted to the government a couple of years before the pandemic when the system was audited. It clearly stated we need to increase stocks in case of pandemics YES YEARS BEFORE!
The government agencies ignored the findings and decided not to spend the money. This was on the Conservative government watch.
There was lots of cheap PPE available then.
Bad government . How is Procurement for the NHS not the responsibility of the government ?? It’s not a public company.
"The answer to this is actually a little more complicated than would seem. Forstly, before Covid, individual trusts were responsible for procurement of PPE. Obviously DHSC oversees these trusts though. Secondly, some PPE has expiry dates, it's not as simple as stockpiling. Didn't you see the headlines of nurses et al complaining of having to wear PPE that was out of date? And thirdly, if stockpiling had happened and wasn't needed, there would be massive outcries from certain factions about waste of money. These statements don't detract from the complete fuck up that was made of PPE contracts but they go a little way to explaining why we didn't have enough in the first place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) How shocking they didn’t publish 30 days before closing the tender .... it’s not like the whole world was clambering for ppe
If they hadn’t ignored the findings of the Pandemic Test done several years earlier (Tory Govt), they could have stockpiled sufficient PPE at a fraction of the cost. I mean do we vote for Govts to deal with crises in a last minute fashion, or would we rather they had ‘followed the science’ when it was cost effective? Just asking.
I know you only see the bad in the government but as you obviously missed it the WHOLE world has serious issues with lack of ppe, most countries stopped companies from exporting to others, it's funny how you can praise the nhs for the vaccine roll out yet you blame the government for the ppe shortage, strangely its nhs buyers that source ppe, its care home managers that source ppe for themselves, buying ppe is not the responsibility of the government,
As the previous to you poster stated.
The PPE shortage in this country was highlighted to the government a couple of years before the pandemic when the system was audited. It clearly stated we need to increase stocks in case of pandemics YES YEARS BEFORE!
The government agencies ignored the findings and decided not to spend the money. This was on the Conservative government watch.
There was lots of cheap PPE available then.
Bad government . How is Procurement for the NHS not the responsibility of the government ?? It’s not a public company.
The answer to this is actually a little more complicated than would seem.
Forstly, before Covid, individual trusts were responsible for procurement of PPE. Obviously DHSC oversees these trusts though.
Secondly, some PPE has expiry dates, it's not as simple as stockpiling. Didn't you see the headlines of nurses et al complaining of having to wear PPE that was out of date?
And thirdly, if stockpiling had happened and wasn't needed, there would be massive outcries from certain factions about waste of money.
These statements don't detract from the complete fuck up that was made of PPE contracts but they go a little way to explaining why we didn't have enough in the first place."Who are these people who would have been complaining about stockpiling PPE? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I must admit I was waiting . But in the end I’d moaned about this before so why not now it’s proven in court! I got to admit I’m not that bothered who the contracts went to as long as the services were provided. As it was at the time a national crisis with the world scrambling for PPE. What I would be bothered about is at the time of a national crisis was the money trousered. (Which is why I think it’s not been published) How shocking they didn’t publish 30 days before closing the tender .... it’s not like the whole world was clambering for ppe
If they hadn’t ignored the findings of the Pandemic Test done several years earlier (Tory Govt), they could have stockpiled sufficient PPE at a fraction of the cost. I mean do we vote for Govts to deal with crises in a last minute fashion, or would we rather they had ‘followed the science’ when it was cost effective? Just asking.
I know you only see the bad in the government but as you obviously missed it the WHOLE world has serious issues with lack of ppe, most countries stopped companies from exporting to others, it's funny how you can praise the nhs for the vaccine roll out yet you blame the government for the ppe shortage, strangely its nhs buyers that source ppe, its care home managers that source ppe for themselves, buying ppe is not the responsibility of the government,
As the previous to you poster stated.
The PPE shortage in this country was highlighted to the government a couple of years before the pandemic when the system was audited. It clearly stated we need to increase stocks in case of pandemics YES YEARS BEFORE!
The government agencies ignored the findings and decided not to spend the money. This was on the Conservative government watch.
There was lots of cheap PPE available then.
Bad government . How is Procurement for the NHS not the responsibility of the government ?? It’s not a public company.
The answer to this is actually a little more complicated than would seem.
Forstly, before Covid, individual trusts were responsible for procurement of PPE. Obviously DHSC oversees these trusts though.
Secondly, some PPE has expiry dates, it's not as simple as stockpiling. Didn't you see the headlines of nurses et al complaining of having to wear PPE that was out of date?
And thirdly, if stockpiling had happened and wasn't needed, there would be massive outcries from certain factions about waste of money.
These statements don't detract from the complete fuck up that was made of PPE contracts but they go a little way to explaining why we didn't have enough in the first place.
Who are these people who would have been complaining about stockpiling PPE? "Well plenty of people moan about all sorts of governments wasting money. That's what it would've been had they stockpiled and went out of date. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. " The stocks weren't "dangerously" low, the review was to see how we would cope in a pandemic as you have been told many times ppe has a use by date,( which quite frankly is totally bonkers buts it's the modern world we live in,) so it wasnt stockpiled, obviously in hindsite that was a mistake, however virtually every country in the world had the same issue. While the government oversee the nhs, individual trusts are responsible for purchasing supplies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. The stocks weren't "dangerously" low, the review was to see how we would cope in a pandemic as you have been told many times ppe has a use by date,( which quite frankly is totally bonkers buts it's the modern world we live in,) so it wasnt stockpiled, obviously in hindsite that was a mistake, however virtually every country in the world had the same issue. While the government oversee the nhs, individual trusts are responsible for purchasing supplies. " ...but they don’t have the same level of death that we have! The NHS was supposed to be able to cope, the Govt let it & us & over 140,000 dead people down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the money they’ve wasted buying form mates would dwarf a regular renewal of some out of date PPE . The fact even if it was close to use by date and replenished it would have given the NHS and care homes a better, safer start. I do accept your point on structure and it does play a part but again that’s where reforms are needed in the NHS . " I don't deny that it may have been less. I don't know the figures personally. My point is about people finding something to complain about regardless. NHS reforms you say? I'm all for all of the public services being reformed. It's a long list though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. " Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. " Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect." Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok" No, there is and always has been a strategic plan in place for just such as case as Covid | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok" You sure about that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok No, there is and always has been a strategic plan in place for just such as case as Covid " I don't disagree with that. I take stock with some posters words like 'they didn't replenish', it's nonsense. I have never and would never say that the governement got it right with their so called contracts, they're strategies, or their many other failures. But it would seem that there is no debate to be had with some people. The Government are bad regardless is the debate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok You sure about that?" If you have reports to the contrary I'll be happy to read them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. The stocks weren't "dangerously" low, the review was to see how we would cope in a pandemic as you have been told many times ppe has a use by date,( which quite frankly is totally bonkers buts it's the modern world we live in,) so it wasnt stockpiled, obviously in hindsite that was a mistake, however virtually every country in the world had the same issue. While the government oversee the nhs, individual trusts are responsible for purchasing supplies. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok No, there is and always has been a strategic plan in place for just such as case as Covid I don't disagree with that. I take stock with some posters words like 'they didn't replenish', it's nonsense. I have never and would never say that the governement got it right with their so called contracts, they're strategies, or their many other failures. But it would seem that there is no debate to be had with some people. The Government are bad regardless is the debate." A link for you to read and give some insight . Right wing paper https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/amp/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok No, there is and always has been a strategic plan in place for just such as case as Covid I don't disagree with that. I take stock with some posters words like 'they didn't replenish', it's nonsense. I have never and would never say that the governement got it right with their so called contracts, they're strategies, or their many other failures. But it would seem that there is no debate to be had with some people. The Government are bad regardless is the debate. A link for you to read and give some insight . Right wing paper https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/amp/" That is all about Operation Cygnus. ie. under prepared for a pandemic. I don't dispute the findings. BTW, I don't need right wing press to believe something  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. The stocks weren't "dangerously" low, the review was to see how we would cope in a pandemic as you have been told many times ppe has a use by date,( which quite frankly is totally bonkers buts it's the modern world we live in,) so it wasnt stockpiled, obviously in hindsite that was a mistake, however virtually every country in the world had the same issue. While the government oversee the nhs, individual trusts are responsible for purchasing supplies. ...but they don’t have the same level of death that we have! The NHS was supposed to be able to cope, the Govt let it & us & over 140,000 dead people down." Death rates are extremely hard to compare, ways of recording deaths, age profile, ethnic profile and general health and fitness all have an impact on death rates, as does family living arrangements, we send our parents to old folks homes rather than look after them at home one reason for a lot of deaths was returning people to old folks homes, the trouble is there was no where else to send them, a few here have admitted that there was no where else when they were challenged as to where to send them, IIRC 25 % of deaths came from old folks homes and a huge number of those had dementia and are very hard to get to social distance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument that they didnt replenish ppe stock despite being told they were dangerously low,because people would have complained,is hardly the most compelling argument. Its similar to the lockdown argument, well people would have complained. So in essence, its more important to be popular,especially in the media, than make difficult decisions. Replenishing and stockpiling are quite different. Our levels were not dangerously low for the running of the service. Do you have any evidence of this? On the face of it and our experience, you are incorrect. Under normal conditions levels were just fine. No one ran out before covid. Or at least there hasn't been any reports. So on the face of it we were ok No, there is and always has been a strategic plan in place for just such as case as Covid I don't disagree with that. I take stock with some posters words like 'they didn't replenish', it's nonsense. I have never and would never say that the governement got it right with their so called contracts, they're strategies, or their many other failures. But it would seem that there is no debate to be had with some people. The Government are bad regardless is the debate. A link for you to read and give some insight . Right wing paper https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/amp/ That is all about Operation Cygnus. ie. under prepared for a pandemic. I don't dispute the findings. BTW, I don't need right wing press to believe something "I wasn’t accusing you of needing right wing papers so please don’t think that. I mentioned it as they are pro Boris and yet are not happy with the report being hidden to this day. What a surprise . No one To blame but themselves . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
