https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-10/...ht-of-lockdown
Sorry, just realised I wasn’t on the politics board when I posted this.
Printable View
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-10/...ht-of-lockdown
Sorry, just realised I wasn’t on the politics board when I posted this.
Yes but they work very very hard.
Corrupt to the core the lot of them. Johnson should resign immediately.
I predict 10 pages from JamesWales saying its not right but hes not bothered about.😂
Yes, they lie and take the piss time and again.
But there are children starving in Africa.
For me, this is sufficiently topical and not a wall of text. That said, I don't want to sound like the board Stasi or anything like that or some sort of deviant politics-posting-shamer. It was just something that resonated with me in a post The Boss made over Christmas (I think) where he mentioned this kind of thing.
Anyway, back to the topic.....
Proven liars are proven to be liars. Self-entitled hypocrites the lot of them.
Tony ****wit-Member of the public giving his opinion on the news while walking down some depressing high St 'Can't blame him really, if i had a pad like that and a few quid like Boris, then i reckon i'd be on the piss as well'
The tweet explains what Johnson said at his press conference a couple of days after the party.
https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/stat...904208897?s=21
Sue Gray is on case , she's no fool.
For the Tory boys on here. Bodger is a compulsive liar. If he’s lying to us about the parties what else is he lying to us about?
https://twitter.com/iainoverton/stat...646235649?s=21
Quite right. We can often tell when it’s blatant lying but how do we know when it’s a subject that is a little more complex? There is no trust.
Pure hypocrisy and lies from Johnson when you are reminded of what he was saying a month ago;-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL42...annel=euronews
Don't forget as well that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned by the PM had to step down from conducting the inquiry into Christmas "gatherings" in 2020 because he had hosted parties of his own!
Anyone who is still defending Johnson can only be some sort of forelock tugger who truly believes that the rules should not apply to their "betters" like heads of state and Royalty.
There is no way that party ( or any others ) would have taken place without a thorough risk assessment before hand. Clearly the P.M’s advisors, medical staff , bodyguards, thought he and other high ranking government members were ok to attend.
There was no vaccine at the time either .
How on earth can you know that? Even if you're right, it's an absolutely terrible look because 99 per cent of the population did not have such risk assessments beforehand, they were just told they could not do it. It's being reported that there were widespread misgivings among many in Downing Street about the party going ahead.
It still went ahead regardless of misgivings, and the people who had these misgivings kept quiet about it until it was leaked yesterday.
And your point is? You said there would have been risk assessments carried out, you're only guessing that and, frankly, with this Government under this Prime Minister, I would not be the least bit surprised if there wasn't. Even if there was, it was still a flagrant breaking of the rules which cannot be fobbed off this time as a work meeting - you need to cast your mind back to what it was like in May 2020, bring a bottle parties were not allowed if I remember rightly.
Sage, at this time, were predicting a reasonable worst-case planning scenario, of 250,000 deaths which was why the public didn’t require to have a risk assessment.
Those who attended the gathering must have had a risk assessment, based on the modelling. If they didn’t I personally couldn’t see how the party would have been authorised. But that is my take on it, unless they thought the SAGE modelling was questionable?
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-29-march-2020
I have read your first sentence a number of times and still don't have a scooby what it means. That's notwithstanding the fact that the document you attached says nothing whatsoever about 250k deaths, which I presume you got from Imperial College's initial analysis of what would happen if no restrictions were imposed.
Witter on about risk analysis all you like. This is about the people who made the rules living by a completely different set. Pure and simple!
A risk assessment is obtainable via Freedom of Information. Plus, if there had been one, d'ya not think that our great and esteemed leaders would want to keep it quiet? I doubt that lot had the fortitude to fake one, pre-date it, scrunch it up, stand on it and suck on the edges a bit. They're liars, but even sh*t at that.
Sage predicted 250,000 deaths at the time apologies if it’s the incorrect documentation, perhaps you could post the reasons for the initial lockdown and figures quoted ( I’m sure you are acutely aware of what I was trying to say )
A risk assessment would have been undertaken, ( even something like have you had a cold in the last 28 days, are any family members displaying symptoms or high risk etc ).
Up to 100 people were at the party, not withstanding bar staff, security, and they would have been in contact with many taxi drivers taking them to and from the venue.
The people who attended would then have gone home to parents , children, grandparents etc.
The party held is not my concern ( as I wasn’t there ) but it appears that they were less concerned about the dangers to Covid compared to what they told the public to be at the time. I wonder why ?
Impossible as it may seem, I think this latest exposure spells the death knell for Boris Johnston as P.M. He should do the honourable thing and fall on his sword before the outcome of the inquiry. He won't of course as it is not in his nature, but unless the inquiry is a total whitewash*, he will get his come-uppance anyway.
*According to those in the know it seems that the lady heading the inquiry is no mug, so hopefully this won't be the case.
From memory, Neil Ferguson’s modelling back in 2020 predicted 250,000 deaths as a worst case scenario in the event of no restrictions being in force and I think it’s fair to say that it was reported as the biggest single factor in convincing both Government and their scientists from going on with their early decision to look towards Herd Immunity as the way of conquering Covid.
As I said it was Neil Ferguson's Imperial College Advisory Group that came up with the 250k figure and was their estimate of what would happen if no restrictions were applied. Obviously they were hence the Sage documentation estimating 50k in the the 1st wave (if people paid poor regard to the restrictions). A factor reduction as a consequence of restrictions in plain to most but not it seems all.
I just don't understand the risk assessment point. These were people who made the rules and were in daily briefings and warnings to the general populace about their infringement. A number would have already had covid including Boris Johnson. These were people who thought themselves above the law.
I presume that your final point is a projection of the it's nothing more than a cold narrative on the day that we reach 175,000 deaths with Covid.
The reasons for their flagrant law breaking and presumed ignoring of possible risk assessments?
A: They're Tories and they believe themselves to be teflon and above the law.
B: They're Tories and they believe themselves to be teflon and immune to Covid.
C: They're libertarians and the Devil can take the hindmost.
Some coming out in support of Bodger saying give him a break he nearly died. Does anyone really believe he was at deaths door? He wasn’t incubated and was up and out of hospital in around 4 days. Big lump of lying lard.
20/3/20 he caught it
No way :hehe:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nd-coronavirus
Once you’re awake you can’t unsee :hehe:
The blogger strikes again
"The May 20 party was first alluded to in a blog by the Prime Minister's former advisor Dominic Cummings on Friday."
I have suggested before the Labour should employ him to ensure they get a romping 80 seat victory the lad has form into tapping into the countries thinking .
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...ign=question_1
YouGov Poll: Do you think Boris Johnson should resign from his role as Prime Minister, or should he remain in his role?
Should resign - 56%
Should remain in his role - 27%
Don’t know - 17%