Saoirse

Moderator
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
You may have noticed I generally avoid this thread simply because it's an exhausting example of Tory ignorance and refusal to accept facts

How you persist in conversing with those too blind thick ignorant -or just the usual tory blend of all 3 - to acknowledge basic facts like the Tories have lied incessantly about virtually everything since their dimwit sheep followers elected them- Camden, you're a lot more patient citizen than myself or have extensive experience working with slow learners.

Either way good luck to you!
 

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
You may have noticed I generally avoid this thread simply because it's an exhausting example of Tory ignorance and refusal to accept facts

How you persist in conversing with those too blind thick ignorant -or just the usual tory blend of all 3 - to acknowledge basic facts like the Tories have lied incessantly about virtually everything since their dimwit sheep followers elected them- Camden, you're a lot more patient citizen than myself or have extensive experience working with slow learners.

Either way good luck to you!

Glad to see you don't need evidence (which was claimed to exist) to backup claims made before these committee's.
 

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
LOL

'Cos I say so' is not a recognised teaching method or evidence against someone .
Or maybe that's how you were taught....would explain a few things LOL.
 

Camden

Member
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
If true, it seems DC is not the only who is receticent in handing over "Key Documents"( could it be a Tory employment trait ? ) maybe then, we will all see the evidence, in the High Court ...



It's a pity it takes a citizen having to go to the Law to get the truth ..... If anyone wants to help with her case costs against the Govt ... the link is here .. Sure the seekers of the Truth, Tenpin & Chips will be the first to contribute ha ha ....




Dr Cathy Gardner Case Owner
My father was one of the thousands who died in a care home during this pandemic. I am launching this action to hold the government to account for not protecting elderly people in care homes.

Hearing scheduled for October but ( Government) key documents are still missing​

The Court has confirmed a final hearing date, but we have serious concerns regarding the Government's failure to disclose key documents

After a series of moves by the Government that have significantly delayed the progress of the case, we are pleased to report that the Court has now listed the final hearing of the claim. This will commence on 19 October 2021 and is likely to last for three days.

We have also now received the Government and NHS England's detailed defences, witness evidence and disclosure.
Whilst we are pleased that the Court has listed the final hearing, the Government's witness evidence and disclosure raise a number of very serious concerns, which are likely to require us to make a number of further applications to the Court in advance of our final hearing.

Our initial view is that there are very serious gaps and omissions in the documents that the Government and NHS has provided and that the Defendants are attempting to suppress disclosure of important documents, with the effect of preventing the Court being able effectively to scrutinise the Defendants' decisions.

In particular, the Government's witness evidence and disclosure includes little or no material recording the involvement of key decision-makers such as the Secretary of State for Health (Matt Hancock MP) and the Prime Minister in the decision-making processes.

Similarly, the Government appears to be seeking to avoid disclosing the documents recording what, if any, advice was given on the key decisions by the Government's most senior scientific advisers, such as the Chief Scientific Adviser (Sir Patrick Vallance) and the Chief Medical Office (Chris Whitty).

We listened with interest to the important evidence provided last week by Dominic Cummings, which revealed that the Government and NHS policy of discharging COVID positive and untested patients to care homes without testing was discussed and approved by the Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) in No. 10 in March. Mr Cumming's has stated that this approval was granted on the basis of Matt Hancock unequivocally assuring the Prime Minister that all patients transferring to care homes would be tested, and that this meeting was attended by a number of other senior officials.

Mr Hancock has subsequently been repeatedly challenged by the media in public to confirm or deny that he provided these assurances. Thus far, he appears to be going to great lengths to avoid giving a straight answer. ( the same could be said about his answers to today's committee )

No documents recording this important meeting at No. 10 have been disclosed by the Defendant.

We will be pressing to obtain these documents, together with the other key documents referred to above.

We are also very seriously concerned about certain aspects of the Government's witness evidence, which includes assertions and claims which are directly contradicted by public statements which Ministers and senior Government officials made at the time the decisions we challenge were made in March and April 2020.

While we are still working through the issues, it seems likely that we will need go back to Court before the final hearing of our claim in order to ensure that the Government complies with its duty of candour, so that the Court is provided with the information it needs to fairly determine our claims.

The Government and NHS England continue to rely on a number of remarkable, untrue, claims which the Prime Minister and Health Secretary have previously used to try to evade responsibility for the tragic consequences of their care home policies.
Astonishingly, the Government and NHS England now say that they did not really know about the risk of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 until mid-April 2020
.

They rely on this claim to argue that it was not unreasonable to adopt and implement a policy of transferring c. 25,000 potentially COVID-19 infected patients into care homes without testing or quarantine during March-April 2020.
These claims are not consistent with the Defendants' own documents (for example the January 2020 SAGE minutes), which show that the Government was well aware of the risk of asymptomatic transmission from January 2020 onwards.


The Government and NHS also attempt to deflect the blame for their failings onto individual clinicians, care homes and/or local authorities, claiming that individual care homes were responsible for not being able to maintain infection control of COVID-19 infected patients and that it was the responsibility of care homes or local authorities to assess whether it was safe for patients to be transferred into a care home. In circumstances where the Government/NHS was directing care homes that 'all' patients could be safely cared for in care homes if the Government's (inadequate) guidance was followed, this is (in our view) outrageous.

Finally, the Government continues to attempt to defend Boris Johnson’s obviously false statement that it brought in a ‘lockdown’ in care homes ahead of the general lockdown on 23 March 2020.

The Government argues that this statement is 'true' because care homes were advised shortly before 23 March to 'review' their visiting policies and isolate any residents within the home who displayed COVID symptoms. We do not think any reasonable or sensible person would consider that advice to 'review' a visiting policy constitutes a 'lockdown'.

Fundamentally I believe that this Government, the DoH&SC, PHE and the NHS, failed to protect residents of care homes. This failure is encapsulated by the Discharge Guidance that resulted in infectious patients being sent to care homes. How and why this decision was taken, and by whom, are central questions for me. This decision was disastrously wrong and we must hold those responsible to account.

I want to again say a huge thank you for all of the support that you’ve given me so far on my case. It really does mean a great deal to me and the other claimants.

Please do continue to share this page and help me to hold the Government to account, in front of the High Court this October, for its appalling failure to protect care home residents from the ravages of COVID-19. Any donations will help ensure we can fight this case as strongly as possible.
Dr Cathy Gardner
 
Last edited:

Camden

Member
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"

It's not as if we don't no Hancock lies​

Matt Hancock accused of ‘rewriting history’ with denial of PPE shortages​


Matt Hancock has been accused of “trying to rewrite history”

after he told a parliamentary inquiry into the Covid-19 crisis that there was never a national shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Tell that to the three nurses in London who went on to test positive

3 nurses in the UK forced to wear trash bags instead of real protective gear have tested positive for the coronavirus​

  • Associations of British medics and nurses say that their members' health is being placed in danger because of the lack of protective equipment.
 
Last edited:

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"

It's not as if we don't no Hancock lies​

Matt Hancock accused of ‘rewriting history’ with denial of PPE shortages​


Matt Hancock has been accused of “trying to rewrite history”

after he told a parliamentary inquiry into the Covid-19 crisis that there was never a national shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Tell that to the three nurses in London who went on to test positive

3 nurses in the UK forced to wear trash bags instead of real protective gear have tested positive for the coronavirus​

  • Associations of British medics and nurses say that their members' health is being placed in danger because of the lack of protective equipment.

He did say, at the committee hearing, that there were "local issues" around the provision of PPE last spring, there was "never a national shortage".

Is that rewriting history?
 

Camden

Member
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
He did say, at the committee hearing, that there were "local issues" around the provision of PPE last spring, there was "never a national shortage".

Is that rewriting history?

Semantics .....And you are believing him ???



Another example sleight of hand by the slippery Tory health secretary .

curtsey of Fullfact.org

Matt Hancock used the phrase “protective ring” to describe the government’s winter Covid-19 plan, and claims to the contrary misinterpret his comments.

Mr Hancock appears to have first used this phrase about care homes on 15 May 2020 to describe action taken during the first wave of the pandemic.

During an appearance on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, 6 June, Health Secretary Matt Hancock denied claims that he had spoken about throwing a “protective ring” around care homes at the early stages of the Covid-19 crisis.




Asked by Mr Marr if he regretted his use of the phrase “protective ring”, Mr Hancock said: “Well I said that much later, about what we were doing for the winter plan, and it’s been interpreted.”

But Mr Hancock actually did use the phrase multiple times in May 2020, to describe action taken during the first wave of the pandemic.


During a Downing Street press conference on 15 May, 2020, Mr Hancock said: “Right from the start, it’s been clear that this horrible virus affects older people most. So right from the start, we’ve tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.”

Days later on 18 May 2020, when questioned on this wording, Mr Hancock told the House of Commons: “We absolutely did throw a protective ring around social care, not least with the £3.2 billion-worth of funding we put in right at the start, topped up with £600 million-worth of funding on Friday.”

He used the phrase again, a day later, telling MPs: “I am glad that we have been able to protect the majority of homes, and we will keep working to strengthen the protective ring that we have cast around all our care homes.”

 

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
Semantics .....And you are believing him ???



Another example sleight of hand by the slippery Tory health secretary .

curtsey of Fullfact.org

Matt Hancock used the phrase “protective ring” to describe the government’s winter Covid-19 plan, and claims to the contrary misinterpret his comments.

Mr Hancock appears to have first used this phrase about care homes on 15 May 2020 to describe action taken during the first wave of the pandemic.

During an appearance on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, 6 June, Health Secretary Matt Hancock denied claims that he had spoken about throwing a “protective ring” around care homes at the early stages of the Covid-19 crisis.




Asked by Mr Marr if he regretted his use of the phrase “protective ring”, Mr Hancock said: “Well I said that much later, about what we were doing for the winter plan, and it’s been interpreted.”

But Mr Hancock actually did use the phrase multiple times in May 2020, to describe action taken during the first wave of the pandemic.


During a Downing Street press conference on 15 May, 2020, Mr Hancock said: “Right from the start, it’s been clear that this horrible virus affects older people most. So right from the start, we’ve tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.”

Days later on 18 May 2020, when questioned on this wording, Mr Hancock told the House of Commons: “We absolutely did throw a protective ring around social care, not least with the £3.2 billion-worth of funding we put in right at the start, topped up with £600 million-worth of funding on Friday.”

He used the phrase again, a day later, telling MPs: “I am glad that we have been able to protect the majority of homes, and we will keep working to strengthen the protective ring that we have cast around all our care homes.”

Semantics .....And you are believing him ???

Where did I say I believed him?

Semantics is one thing.....specific facts is another.

But then we've seen how often you believe without facts or actual evidence as it fits your agenda.
 

35pluschips

Member
Top Poster Of Month
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"

It's not as if we don't no Hancock lies​

Matt Hancock accused of ‘rewriting history’ with denial of PPE shortages​


Matt Hancock has been accused of “trying to rewrite history”

after he told a parliamentary inquiry into the Covid-19 crisis that there was never a national shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Tell that to the three nurses in London who went on to test positive

3 nurses in the UK forced to wear trash bags instead of real protective gear have tested positive for the coronavirus​

  • Associations of British medics and nurses say that their members' health is being placed in danger because of the lack of protective equipment.

It's not as if we don't no Hancock lies​

Matt Hancock accused of ‘rewriting history’ with denial of PPE shortages​


Matt Hancock has been accused of “trying to rewrite history”

after he told a parliamentary inquiry into the Covid-19 crisis that there was never a national shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Tell that to the three nurses in London who went on to test positive

3 nurses in the UK forced to wear trash bags instead of real protective gear have tested positive for the coronavirus​

  • Associations of British medics and nurses say that their members' health is being placed in danger because of the lack of protective equipment.

"It's not as if we don't no Hancock lies"​

If you intend putting that on a Labour flyer.........go ahead lol
 

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
Semantics .....And you are believing him ???



Another example sleight of hand by the slippery Tory health secretary .

curtsey of Fullfact.org

Matt Hancock used the phrase “protective ring” to describe the government’s winter Covid-19 plan, and claims to the contrary misinterpret his comments.

Mr Hancock appears to have first used this phrase about care homes on 15 May 2020 to describe action taken during the first wave of the pandemic.

During an appearance on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, 6 June, Health Secretary Matt Hancock denied claims that he had spoken about throwing a “protective ring” around care homes at the early stages of the Covid-19 crisis.




Asked by Mr Marr if he regretted his use of the phrase “protective ring”, Mr Hancock said: “Well I said that much later, about what we were doing for the winter plan, and it’s been interpreted.”

But Mr Hancock actually did use the phrase multiple times in May 2020, to describe action taken during the first wave of the pandemic.


During a Downing Street press conference on 15 May, 2020, Mr Hancock said: “Right from the start, it’s been clear that this horrible virus affects older people most. So right from the start, we’ve tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.”

Days later on 18 May 2020, when questioned on this wording, Mr Hancock told the House of Commons: “We absolutely did throw a protective ring around social care, not least with the £3.2 billion-worth of funding we put in right at the start, topped up with £600 million-worth of funding on Friday.”

He used the phrase again, a day later, telling MPs: “I am glad that we have been able to protect the majority of homes, and we will keep working to strengthen the protective ring that we have cast around all our care homes.”


Lets talk semantics......

At what point does Local Issues mean the same as National Issues?

Also, your reply changed the narrative from PPE to Protective Ring.
So I'm wondering if you actually can stick to point or just diverge to other points when you know you cannot backup what you originally posted.
 

Camden

Member
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
Semantics .....And you are believing him ???

Where did I say I believed him?

Semantics is one thing.....specific facts is another.

But then we've seen how often you believe without facts or actual evidence as it fits your agenda.

Where did i say you did ? It was rhetorical question not expecting an answer, but still a question ( denoted by question marks was the clue) .. no statement you did. Though possibly your defense of him might lead others to think you do? .

So will ask you directly do you believe him ?

Because I must admit in the past, I have found those from the right, prefer not to say , unless it can be in dog whistle form , so deniable later if found wrong .... no actual principled position, if not deniable later for them....

Because the Tory Health Secretary must take the electorate for fools, we all saw the lack of PPE . So no avoidance by him in answering or his political speak, semantics, half truths or sleight of hand..... passes muster .....

He did as you say

Tenpin :He did say, at the committee hearing, that there were "local issues" around the provision of PPE last spring, there was "never a national shortage".

So let's talk semantics as you want, but not half facts nor selective.

If we are to believe the report he cites to assert his above claim ... then so should the other part of the same report which he conveniently and selectively didn't cite, which threw doubt on his claim should be believed ????????


Hancock quoted from the National Audit Office report to support his assertion, citing this passage directly: “The NHS provider organisations we spoke to told us that, while they were concerned about the low stocks of PPE, they were always able to get what they needed in time."


But he didn't quote from the same report that went on to say ....

Mr Hancock did not make clear that the following paragraph says: “This was not the experience reported by many front-line workers. Feedback from care workers, doctors and nurses show that significant numbers of them considered that they were not adequately protected during the height of the first wave of the pandemic."

It goes on to say: "From this survey evidence we cannot know how representative these experiences are of the whole workforce, but occurrence of shortages is supported by other qualitative evidence."

Also a report by the Public Accounts Committee published in February came to a similar conclusion: "Many workers at the front line in health and social care were put in the appalling situation of having to care for people with COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 without sufficient PPE to protect themselves from infection

 
Last edited:

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
Where did i say you did ? It was rhetorical in question, the clue was the question marks.

but ask again ...So do you believe him ?

I must admit in the past I have found those from the right, prefer not to say , unless it can be in dog whistle form , so deniable later if found wrong .... no actual principled position, if not deniable later for them....

Because the Tory Health Secretary must take the electorate for fools, we all saw the lack of PPE . So no avoidance by him in answering or his political speak, semantics, half truths or sleight of hand..... passes muster .....

He did as you say



So let's talk semantics as you want, but not half facts nor selective.

If we are to believe the report he cites to assert his above claim ... then so should the other part of the same report which he conveniently and selectively didn't cite, which threw doubt on his claim should be believed ????????


Hancock quoted from the National Audit Office report to support his assertion, citing this passage directly: “The NHS provider organisations we spoke to told us that, while they were concerned about the low stocks of PPE, they were always able to get what they needed in time."


But he didn't quote from the same report that went on to say ....

Mr Hancock did not make clear that the following paragraph says: “This was not the experience reported by many front-line workers. Feedback from care workers, doctors and nurses show that significant numbers of them considered that they were not adequately protected during the height of the first wave of the pandemic."

It goes on to say: "From this survey evidence we cannot know how representative these experiences are of the whole workforce, but occurrence of shortages is supported by other qualitative evidence."

Also a report by the Public Accounts Committee published in February came to a similar conclusion: "Many workers at the front line in health and social care were put in the appalling situation of having to care for people with COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 without sufficient PPE to protect themselves from infection


but ask again ...So do you believe him ?

I believe that there were local issues, not issues at every location (national).
So yes I believe him when he states that fact.

Your post even backs up that position.......
"Many workers at the front line in health and social care were put in the appalling situation of having to care for people with COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 without sufficient PPE to protect themselves from infection

Many workers, without a number quoted, does not give any indication as to what percentage of workers or their location.


If there are 2 conflicting reports, which you say there are regarding PPE, are you only going to believe only the one that fits your view?
Or do you look at them individually based on what you've hear and seen from various sources?
There has been NHS etc staff on twitter etc over the last 18 month that have said they had no issue sourcing PPE.....so should we take that as being the national situation?
 

Camden

Member
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
but ask again ...So do you believe him ?

I believe that there were local issues, not issues at every location (national).
So yes I believe him when he states that fact.

Your post even backs up that position.......
"Many workers at the front line in health and social care were put in the appalling situation of having to care for people with COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 without sufficient PPE to protect themselves from infection

Many workers, without a number quoted, does not give any indication as to what percentage of workers or their location.


If there are 2 conflicting reports, which you say there are regarding PPE, are you only going to believe only the one that fits your view?
Or do you look at them individually based on what you've hear and seen from various sources?
There has been NHS etc staff on twitter etc over the last 18 month that have said they had no issue sourcing PPE.....so should we take that as being the national situation?

Hancock words were, he told fellow MPs that despite “local problems” there was “ NEVER a national shortage of PPE”. No wonder NHS workers feel insulted ...

When you were talking of "only one that fits my view".... do you mean like how Hancock did ? quoting only a selective part, from the bulk of the report, that conflicted from his own narrative ??? which it seems , you willingly accept only his excerpt ,possibly as it fits your view ?

It wasn't a conflicting report how do we quantify or put a figure on "many "? This was a Public Accounts Committee "a Committee member" can certainly ask for figures , but can as much be given a simple “I don't have that figure in front of me "It's not like the NAO which he quoted selectively, it isn't called the National Audit Office for nothing.

The frontline staff doctors nurses etc were the ones using PPE they knew we saw what was and wasn't available it wasn't just "local issues "
"
There was so many Professional Bodies nursing ,doctors, care , and NHS Unions all were complaining across the country of the lack of PPE ...

The Health Secretary himself at one time during the Pandemic was unable to guarantee the NHS wouldn't run out of protective gowns, asking for them to be reused, that wasn't just a " local issue " but National, so much so, they had to send out a National guideline , sent to all hospitals to reuse gowns due to a National shortage as reported ? Yes, National a National disgrace....


For the trust leaders that NHS Providers represents, nothing could be more important than ensuring their staff have the personal protection equipment they need. For them, it is extremely worrying that staff who need long-sleeved gowns, in line with formal PPE guidance from Public Health England, cannot access them because of national supply shortage.


BMA members in the UK were asked to give feedback in a survey during the Pandemic at certain times on their current PPE supplies. Survey revealed almost half of doctors have relied upon donated or self bought, two thirds felt they don't/didn't feel fully protected


 
Last edited:

Tenpin

The Yorkshireman
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
I do have to congratulate you on steering this away from my original question regarding Cummings not providing the, so called 'bombshell' document to backup his evidence to the committee by directing attention to Hancock.

I followed you down that rabbit hole ...... should have known better.
 

Camden

Member
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
I do have to congratulate you on steering this away from my original question regarding Cummings not providing the, so called 'bombshell' document to backup his evidence to the committee by directing attention to Hancock.

I followed you down that rabbit hole ...... should have known better.

That is strange Tenpin my post #68 was not in answer to your question as you said , if it was , there would have been a quote from you above it ... #68 was a new post on Hancocks testimony and deceit on the "Lions Led By Donkeys" thread ... and it was you in fact that countered my post on that new particular subject, no mention of DC documents, but on Hancocks testimony ...........so how could I be steering this away from a subject we weren't discussing ?

Your counter of "rabbit hole" is possibly an excuse or deflection on your own inability defend his lies on the subject of his testimony ? I really don't know ......

For what is obvious to most, is this Tory Health minister is inept at the job he holds... And Boris can't sack him at the moment , because Ironically DC by his accusations has saved Hancock . ... As Boris can't be seen to giving any credence to his fantasist exadvisor's testimony by sacking Hancock ... in doing so showing the Tory PM as weaker than he already is ..... and with poor judgement to boot in employing both such inept men...
 
Last edited:

immac

Senior Member Has-Been
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
For what is obvious to most, is this Tory Health minister is inept at the job he holds... And Boris can't sack him at the moment , because Ironically DC by his accusations has saved Hancock . ... As Boris can't be seen to giving any credence to his fantasist exadvisor's testimony by sacking Hancock ... in doing so showing the Tory PM as weaker than he already is ..... and with poor judgement to boot in employing both such inept men...
I am sure you can see the irony in your posts. You are saying that the Remain argument was defeated by a bunch of charlatans and weirdos; the British public backed them and their vision even knowing their flaws and peccadilloes - and rejected the combined might of Remain, The EU, USA President, World Bank, ex-Prime Ministers etc etc. Despite all that, and the personalities involved, you still lost the argument.

Ian
 

Camden

Member
Dominic "Lions Led By Donkeys"
I am sure you can see the irony in your posts. You are saying that the Remain argument was defeated by a bunch of charlatans and weirdos; the British public backed them and their vision even knowing their flaws and peccadilloes - and rejected the combined might of Remain, The EU, USA President, World Bank, ex-Prime Ministers etc etc. Despite all that, and the personalities involved, you still lost the argument.

Ian

Ian, It's not the first Nation to be fooled by "charlatans and weirdos"propaganda , Germany, Italy and America whilst under the McCarthy spell come to mind Though late, history eventually brings their deeds to the public's knowledge.

It can be a potent force, especially when unleashed with no filter on the lies and now seen broken promises allowed in the Brexit argument, happily promoted and helped by the suggestive power of the Tory media.

I know I quoted before but so apt “It’s Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom