FabSwingers.com mobile

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

Covid handling unlawful

Jump to newest
 

By *ackal1 OP   Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

To all those who claim what a great job Boris did with the Covid pandemic. .

The high court has ruled that the governments policy to discharge elderly patients to care homes despite objections from healthcare workers was unlawful. People died as a result of this action.

So yet again we expose more law breaking from this bunch of lying swindlers.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

But but but vaccines -

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To all those who claim what a great job Boris did with the Covid pandemic. .

The high court has ruled that the governments policy to discharge elderly patients to care homes despite objections from healthcare workers was unlawful. People died as a result of this action.

So yet again we expose more law breaking from this bunch of lying swindlers.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

But but but vaccines - "

Does this mean the sun no longer shines out the Great Leaders backside..?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To all those who claim what a great job Boris did with the Covid pandemic. .

The high court has ruled that the governments policy to discharge elderly patients to care homes despite objections from healthcare workers was unlawful. People died as a result of this action.

So yet again we expose more law breaking from this bunch of lying swindlers.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

But but but vaccines - "

They will just blame Matt Hancock

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackal1 OP   Couple
over a year ago

Manchester

[Removed by poster at 27/04/22 11:46:57]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackal1 OP   Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"To all those who claim what a great job Boris did with the Covid pandemic. .

The high court has ruled that the governments policy to discharge elderly patients to care homes despite objections from healthcare workers was unlawful. People died as a result of this action.

So yet again we expose more law breaking from this bunch of lying swindlers.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

But but but vaccines -

They will just blame Matt Hancock "

And yet every Minister claimed they definitely did everything they could to save lives . Hmm really?

Anyone who votes for this bunch now must hate their country or their fellow citizens . Beyond an embarrassment . They are just dangerous incompetent liars.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago

Longridge

It means friends of mine who lost family members by having cohabitatants forced into their homes, who ultimately caught COVID and died - have a valid claim against the government or NHS.

It should never have been allowed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

I wonder who is going to take the government to court about prioritising covid patients over cancer (et al.) patients?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"It means friends of mine who lost family members by having cohabitatants forced into their homes, who ultimately caught COVID and died - have a valid claim against the government or NHS.

It should never have been allowed."

Not the NHS it would be against the DHSC as they set policy. The NHS is delivery.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wonder who is going to take the government to court about prioritising covid patients over cancer (et al.) patients?"

Nobody

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
over a year ago

Brighton


"I wonder who is going to take the government to court about prioritising covid patients over cancer (et al.) patients?"

No-one will do anything in all likelihood. But IF they did it would be a numbers game. The Covid related deaths due to moving patients from hospital to care homes can be quantified.

Cancer related deaths due to delayed treatment can possibly be quantified. But cancer deaths due to not being diagnosed is unlikely to be quantifiable in a way that could satisfy the courts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago

Longridge


"It means friends of mine who lost family members by having cohabitatants forced into their homes, who ultimately caught COVID and died - have a valid claim against the government or NHS.

It should never have been allowed.

Not the NHS it would be against the DHSC as they set policy. The NHS is delivery."

Either way - should never gave been allowed. The NHS enforced the policy by parking ambulances outside care homes at 1am in the morning, forcing managers to accept them. It was NHS staff amending COVID tests from positive to negative by crossing out with biro.

Wait for the adverts: "Did you loose a family member in a care home during the pandemic".

You thought PPI and accident chasers were bad.. keep watching!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

The court ruled it was unlawful to release elderly patients from hospital back to care homes without testing them for covid or providing suitable isolation.

It was becoming clear at the time, Hancock was not up to the job, in the messages Boris sent to Cummings, he actually called Hancock hopeless in his handling of this very issue.

Cummings told MP's in June 21, that the health secretary had lied to Boris about testing hospital patients before they were released back into care homes at the start of the pandemic.

The writing was on the wall then! This ruling ensures that this type of incompetence should never happen again.

I think what this shows us is how far Boris went to cover up for his colleagues. This trait of his which in simple terms is lying, which is proving to become his downfall. I expect he feels he is doing the honourable thing, which would be him lying to himself, or highlighting is inability to understand the consequences of his actions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke


"I wonder who is going to take the government to court about prioritising covid patients over cancer (et al.) patients?

Nobody "

Thanks. That will help the 340 thousand people facing late diagnose - which for many will just be too late.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackal1 OP   Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"I wonder who is going to take the government to court about prioritising covid patients over cancer (et al.) patients?

Nobody

Thanks. That will help the 340 thousand people facing late diagnose - which for many will just be too late. "

It’s actually horrific how this was handled . This goes beyond party lines and is in the realm of criminal incompetence .

If the cabinet was a company manslaughter charges would be on their way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *9alMan
over a year ago

Bridgend


"It means friends of mine who lost family members by having cohabitatants forced into their homes, who ultimately caught COVID and died - have a valid claim against the government or NHS.

It should never have been allowed."

it was well known that hospital aquired infections are often spread into care homes by discharged patents MRSA etc . its common sense that covid would be spread in the same way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago

Longridge

Friends mother said, she would be dead within weeks as hospital discharges were ramped up into her home.

She was dead 10 days later - from COVID, not with COVID along with four others the same week.

A lot seem to now forget how deadly the first variants were.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr


"To all those who claim what a great job Boris did with the Covid pandemic. .

The high court has ruled that the governments policy to discharge elderly patients to care homes despite objections from healthcare workers was unlawful. People died as a result of this action.

So yet again we expose more law breaking from this bunch of lying swindlers.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

But but but vaccines - "

Boris has said, on more than one occasion, in Parliament, that he accepts full responsibility for the Government's response to the Covid outbreak.

I very much doubt if he actually means that.

If he did, that would mean he would be admitting responsibility for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths of UK citizens.

He very definitely is responsible - but it won't stop him getting his knighthood and his place in the House of Lords.

As for those in charge of the NHS response in Scotland, Wales and NI - they don't get off utterly blameless. They're not.

However, the UK is an island and Boris utterly failed to isolate it properly, or quickly enough.

His leadership decisions allowed the virus to thrive, for at least nine months before vaccines were available.

Like it or not, people died - who did not have to - due to his incompetence and lack of regard for UK citizens.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It means friends of mine who lost family members by having cohabitatants forced into their homes, who ultimately caught COVID and died - have a valid claim against the government or NHS.

It should never have been allowed.

Not the NHS it would be against the DHSC as they set policy. The NHS is delivery.

Either way - should never gave been allowed. The NHS enforced the policy by parking ambulances outside care homes at 1am in the morning, forcing managers to accept them. It was NHS staff amending COVID tests from positive to negative by crossing out with biro.

Wait for the adverts: "Did you loose a family member in a care home during the pandemic".

You thought PPI and accident chasers were bad.. keep watching!!"
what's this about crossing out tests ? How does that even work?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ayturners turn hayMan
over a year ago

Wellingborugh


"To all those who claim what a great job Boris did with the Covid pandemic. .

The high court has ruled that the governments policy to discharge elderly patients to care homes despite objections from healthcare workers was unlawful. People died as a result of this action.

So yet again we expose more law breaking from this bunch of lying swindlers.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

But but but vaccines - "
. Everyone can make the right decision with the benefit of hindsight. The country was in crisis and decisions had to be made promptly . We did not vote for judges to run our country . They simply make a decision on the day which may be right or wrong. This was a private action brought by individuals with an axe to grind . Other parts of the case failed . The result of a private action is hardly relevant . It seems some people have money to waste .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To all those who claim what a great job Boris did with the Covid pandemic. .

The high court has ruled that the governments policy to discharge elderly patients to care homes despite objections from healthcare workers was unlawful. People died as a result of this action.

So yet again we expose more law breaking from this bunch of lying swindlers.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

But but but vaccines - . Everyone can make the right decision with the benefit of hindsight. The country was in crisis and decisions had to be made promptly . We did not vote for judges to run our country . They simply make a decision on the day which may be right or wrong. This was a private action brought by individuals with an axe to grind . Other parts of the case failed . The result of a private action is hardly relevant . It seems some people have money to waste . "
right or wrong in hindsight, always good to keep decisions on the right side of the law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To all those who claim what a great job Boris did with the Covid pandemic. .

The high court has ruled that the governments policy to discharge elderly patients to care homes despite objections from healthcare workers was unlawful. People died as a result of this action.

So yet again we expose more law breaking from this bunch of lying swindlers.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that, despite there being "growing awareness" of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then Health Secretary Matt Hancock addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

But but but vaccines - . Everyone can make the right decision with the benefit of hindsight. The country was in crisis and decisions had to be made promptly . We did not vote for judges to run our country . They simply make a decision on the day which may be right or wrong. This was a private action brought by individuals with an axe to grind . Other parts of the case failed . The result of a private action is hardly relevant . It seems some people have money to waste . "

The government got it wrong , they need to admit to the mistakes and apologies

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top