Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.
I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
People can be prosecuted for provoking someone into committing a crime.
Most people do, actually, have respect for the law, lawyers and judges. Those of us not in your ivory tower know that. If you got down from your comfortable middle class existence and spoke to some real people you’d realise that.
Most people don't. Get burglared, your car broken into and the police will likely not even bother to investigate. Say the wrong thing on twitter or wear an offensive shirt its all hands to the pump. Most in the country despise you all and think you are a passel of arseholes.
A very easy and universally popular policy for any political party would be to actually bloody investigate burglaries and car thefts. The passivity on these crimes is bewildering. In the last 2 years I’ve had a car stolen, a caravan stolen (from my vineyard), and there have been multiple break ins on our street. In all cases the police - both the Met and Kent police - responded with an efficient and empathetic shrug.
and offer you a crime number but no action
Oh, I don’t know
A chap I knew had a quad bike stolen from his property. It was in a shed, being repaired. When stolen the two thrived got a certain distance before a nasty crash.
The police investigated thoroughly.
Him, for the alleged claim that he’d booby trapped the quad bike to deliberately target thieves.
Not surprised my step father had his dog stolen from his garden the police didn't turn up for 5 hours and he had got it back having caught up to the tramp. They told him he was lucky they hadn't found the tramp so couldn't press assault charges for threatening him to get his dog back
I was in my flat oe day and someone was trying to kick the door in. While I had my back pressed against the door I very loudly called 999 to try and scare them off (successfully - thankfully). 5-6hrs later two police turned up and asked me who did it. I said I didn't know as... the door was closed and I had my back against it.
"Well, there's not much we can do then".
End of investigation.
Almost opposite event - when I still smoked I cast around for a bin to use to safely dispose of the end of a ciggy on a busy street. No sign of one so I guiltily put it out by smooshing it underfoot. Walked into a shop to buy some stuff. Queue two policemen who had been outside coming in and physically manhandling me out of the shop to give me a fine for my heinous crime. Turned out they'd been carefully standing in front of the one bin so you couldn't see it.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
I thought Eat Out to Help Out was reasonable, and I took advantage of it.
How is this even a story? Unless people think we needed permanent social distancing, people were going to go out and mingle with each other sooner or later.
If these leaks and comments continue then the inquiry becomes seriously compromised and will lose credibility
There are two sides to many of these stories, and as I have posted Edmund himself questioned their advice later on the grounds they had not considered the economic impact
It is fairly well known Johnson and Sunak were sceptical of lockdowns and many are coming round to this view
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Is it beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes, I think it is beyond reasonable doubt.
I don't think he should be arrested for it - thrown out of the stadium, banned from attending any future football matches and barred by any reputable pubs should be sufficient sanction in a free society.
No society, free or otherwise, lets people say what they want whenever they want without risk of criminal sanction. Not even the USA. This was an act designed to provoke strong feelings with the real potential for violence
So you argue someone should be prosecuted because other people might commit crimes. We can tell you are a lawyer because the no one should ever be prosecuted because others might break the law. It is why most people have no respect for law, the police, lawyers or judges
The concept of “fighting words” has an ancient history in law.
"Why, if you don't withdraw those remarks, Sir, I shall put Pineapple on your pizza!"
Another critical decision set to be investigated by Hallett was made in September 2020, when the government was urged by Sage to impose a mini-lockdown to dampen rising case numbers, with both Johnson and Sunak opposing the move. “I said then that the question was either do it now and get on top of the epidemic and keep it under control, or be forced into doing it in a few weeks’ time, by which time the epidemic will be much worse,” Edmunds said. “There will be many more hospitalisations and deaths, and you will have to take more stringent action. Unfortunately that is exactly what happened.”
This was always going to happen whenever you removed restrictions. The logic of the circuit breaker was false.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
I thought Eat Out to Help Out was reasonable, and I took advantage of it.
How is this even a story? Unless people think we needed permanent social distancing, people were going to go out and mingle with each other sooner or later.
If these leaks and comments continue then the inquiry becomes seriously compromised and will lose credibility
There are two sides to many of these stories, and as I have posted Edmund himself questioned their advice later on the grounds they had not considered the economic impact
It is fairly well known Johnson and Sunak were sceptical of lockdowns and many are coming round to this view
You wish!
How is this a leak that could undermine the inquiry? As far as I can see it's a comment from a Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
He's entitled to his views and maybe, given his position, the Inquiry will hear them first hand. There's nothing to stop him talking to the press outside the Inquiry though, as far as I'm aware.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
I think there is next to no chance of Sunak running into trouble on EO2HO unless he said some really intemperate things, which would seem out of character.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
I thought Eat Out to Help Out was reasonable, and I took advantage of it.
How is this even a story? Unless people think we needed permanent social distancing, people were going to go out and mingle with each other sooner or later.
If these leaks and comments continue then the inquiry becomes seriously compromised and will lose credibility
There are two sides to many of these stories, and as I have posted Edmund himself questioned their advice later on the grounds they had not considered the economic impact
It is fairly well known Johnson and Sunak were sceptical of lockdowns and many are coming round to this view
You wish!
How is this a leak that could undermine the inquiry? As far as I can see it's a comment from a Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
He's entitled to his views and maybe, given his position, the Inquiry will hear them first hand. There's nothing to stop him talking to the press outside the Inquiry though, as far as I'm aware.
Well he certainly admitted later that they had not considered the economic impact which he concedes they should have
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
I don't think this can possibly be an explanation for the WhatsApp message fiasco, as there can be no argument over whether messages about this policy would be relevant. Failure to disclose - regardless of the decision in the judicial review - would be a serious offence and career-ending cover-up.
I see the grubby hand of Simon Case in all this. He's the common link, and has rather a lot to hide about how he managed the conduct of Government at that time. I suspect he prevailed on Sunak to back the JR on a pretty bogus "chilling effect on free discussion basis". And Sunak, being actually really bad ad judging the optics of these kinds of things, said "okay, Simon".
Simon Case's vindictive comments about "locking up" travellers in "premier inn shoe boxes" should have been career ending.
No it shouldn't, but only because his career should never have started.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
I think there is next to no chance of Sunak running into trouble on EO2HO unless he said some really intemperate things, which would seem out of character.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
You may be right but something must be driving that reluctance. Until we find out, speculation will inevitably fill the gap.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
I thought Eat Out to Help Out was reasonable, and I took advantage of it.
How is this even a story? Unless people think we needed permanent social distancing, people were going to go out and mingle with each other sooner or later.
If these leaks and comments continue then the inquiry becomes seriously compromised and will lose credibility
There are two sides to many of these stories, and as I have posted Edmund himself questioned their advice later on the grounds they had not considered the economic impact
It is fairly well known Johnson and Sunak were sceptical of lockdowns and many are coming round to this view
You wish!
How is this a leak that could undermine the inquiry? As far as I can see it's a comment from a Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
He's entitled to his views and maybe, given his position, the Inquiry will hear them first hand. There's nothing to stop him talking to the press outside the Inquiry though, as far as I'm aware.
Well he certainly admitted later that they had not considered the economic impact which he concedes they should have
Wasn't his job. Remit is all important when doing government work.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
I think there is next to no chance of Sunak running into trouble on EO2HO unless he said some really intemperate things, which would seem out of character.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
You may be right but something must be driving that reluctance. Until we find out, speculation will inevitably fill the gap.
I think that is fair comment but I am not convinced Sunak is trying to hide his own actions
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
Great piece by Fraser Nelson on how Facebook works with government against the public interest
'The commercial incentive for me as an editor is now clear. By all means, publish articles about Philip Schofield, Ukraine, the royals – but steer clear of anything taking a critical view of government public health policy. That way you risk being “downrated” by Facebook. Academics fear being marked down as “sceptics” so they have an incentive to avoid the areas that need investigation the most.'
Mark Candymountain has more power than Murdoch, Hearst or Beaverbrook ever had
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
Believe yours truly opined on PB at time of the Rishi Meal Deal that it DID have obvious potential for virus spreading.
Certainly had that thought. And doubt I was only one.
It was sufficiently stupid for my business partner and I to discuss it and decide not to open the restaurant at all, and just continue with our home deliveries.
Seems to me that people are getting over excited here.
It's already been announced that it's going to take until Summer 2026 for all evidence to be heard. So it's going to be 2027 before any report is issued.
And that's if the current timetable is adhered to. There's every chance it'll all take much longer than scheduled - indeed this Judicial Review is the first step in stringing it out.
So what are we actually saying here? Maybe in 2027 but more likely in 2028 or 2029 a report is going to come out saying Eat Out to Help Out made Covid worse.
I'm sure that's going to have a huge impact on politics in 2028 or 2029.
Seems to me that people are getting over excited here.
It's already been announced that it's going to take until Summer 2026 for all evidence to be heard. So it's going to be 2027 before any report is issued.
And that's if the current timetable is adhered to. There's every chance it'll all take much longer than scheduled - indeed this Judicial Review is the first step in stringing it out.
So what are we actually saying here? Maybe in 2027 but more likely in 2028 or 2029 a report is going to come out saying Eat Out to Help Out made Covid worse.
I'm sure that's going to have a huge impact on politics in 2028 or 2029.
Isn't the plan for the public hearings to begin this year, so seeing Sunak squirm and obfuscate could be bad for him and his party.
Today my humble Seattle hood (overwhelmingly middle-class and white-bread) is a festive, thronging, happening place - thanks to our local PrideFest.
Which is dominated by families, with lots of young kids, but with plenty of folks from under 1 to over 90. Weather is perfect, sunny and 70s Fahrenheit.
Local library branch, park, coffee shops, restaurants, shops are not just going with the flow, but leading the way.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that we do have somewhat above-average proportion of gay people, in particular lesbians. Who tend toward salt-of-the-earth way more than wild-and-crazy.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
Seems to me that people are getting over excited here.
It's already been announced that it's going to take until Summer 2026 for all evidence to be heard. So it's going to be 2027 before any report is issued.
And that's if the current timetable is adhered to. There's every chance it'll all take much longer than scheduled - indeed this Judicial Review is the first step in stringing it out.
So what are we actually saying here? Maybe in 2027 but more likely in 2028 or 2029 a report is going to come out saying Eat Out to Help Out made Covid worse.
I'm sure that's going to have a huge impact on politics in 2028 or 2029.
Isn't the plan for the public hearings to begin this year, so seeing Sunak squirm and obfuscate could be bad for him and his party.
And you think he'll be the first to give evidence?
What was the time gap from the date when the Chilcott Inquiry was set up until the date Blair gave evidence?
Surely all written evidence will have to be submitted and reviewed by Hallett before she is ready to conduct oral hearings?
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus.
The prime minister’s role as chancellor during the pandemic is under increasing scrutiny – as is that of his predecessor at No 10, Boris Johnson – in an escalating Covid blame game at Westminster as Lady Hallett prepares to open her investigation into the government’s pandemic response later this month.
The president of the British Medical Association, Prof Martin McKee, also criticises the “dysfunctional” way in which the government, including the Treasury under Sunak, overlooked scientific advice throughout the pandemic.....
....This weekend, there are signs that while Johnson will be firmly in Hallett’s sights, so, too, will Sunak – particularly over the way the Treasury failed to involve scientists in decisions and the formulation of policy. Hallett has already sent questions to Johnson asking if scientific evidence and opinion was sought before eat out to help out was launched, which appears not to have been the case.
Speaking to the Observer, Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who was a member of the Sage committee of advisers to ministers and who has submitted written evidence to the inquiry, said the controversial eat out to help out scheme – which gave people discounts for eating in restaurants and pubs – was never discussed with scientists.
“If we had [been consulted], I would have been clear what I thought about it,” said Edmunds. “As far as I am concerned, it was a spectacularly stupid idea and an obscene way to spend public money.”
Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
In his recently published book Johnson at 10: The Inside Story, Anthony Seldon says that the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, first found about the scheme when he read a press release about it. Asked to comment on the claim on Saturday, Hancock’s spokesperson did not deny the account but said he was unable to comment before the inquiry.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
I think there is next to no chance of Sunak running into trouble on EO2HO unless he said some really intemperate things, which would seem out of character.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
You may be right but something must be driving that reluctance. Until we find out, speculation will inevitably fill the gap.
I think that is fair comment but I am not convinced Sunak is trying to hide his own actions
Of course not! It’s not as if he ate a curry or something, then you’d be calling for his resignation.
As it happens, I thought EOTO a v good policy. If this were really the issue, and if Sunak were really a leader, he’d front it out.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
I think there is next to no chance of Sunak running into trouble on EO2HO unless he said some really intemperate things, which would seem out of character.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
You may be right but something must be driving that reluctance. Until we find out, speculation will inevitably fill the gap.
I think that is fair comment but I am not convinced Sunak is trying to hide his own actions
Of course not! It’s not as if he ate a curry or something, then you’d be calling for his resignation.
As it happens, I thought EOTO a v good policy. If this were really the issue, and if Sunak were really a leader, he’d front it out.
Big G said Starmer should resign before the investigation ROFL
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
I think there is next to no chance of Sunak running into trouble on EO2HO unless he said some really intemperate things, which would seem out of character.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
You may be right but something must be driving that reluctance. Until we find out, speculation will inevitably fill the gap.
I think that is fair comment but I am not convinced Sunak is trying to hide his own actions
Of course not! It’s not as if he ate a curry or something, then you’d be calling for his resignation.
As it happens, I thought EOTO a v good policy. If this were really the issue, and if Sunak were really a leader, he’d front it out.
I think the poster who identified Simon Case (the Civil Service) as the main mover behind the Judicial Review may have a point - Sunak's dreadful announcement that 'The Government is confident in its position' seems pointedly to refer the 'the Government, not me'. Or it could just be that Sunak doesn’t have the balls to stand behind his own policy.
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
I think there is next to no chance of Sunak running into trouble on EO2HO unless he said some really intemperate things, which would seem out of character.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
You may be right but something must be driving that reluctance. Until we find out, speculation will inevitably fill the gap.
I think that is fair comment but I am not convinced Sunak is trying to hide his own actions
Of course not! It’s not as if he ate a curry or something, then you’d be calling for his resignation.
As it happens, I thought EOTO a v good policy. If this were really the issue, and if Sunak were really a leader, he’d front it out.
The policy was fine, it was just the timing of it that was moronic.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
Rishi Sunak is facing a barrage of criticism in the run-up to the official Covid-19 inquiry as a leading scientist attacks his “spectacularly stupid” eat out to help out scheme, which is believed to have caused a sudden rise in cases of the virus. [..] Eat out to help out was launched in August 2020. It allowed diners to claim 50% off more than 160m meals at a cost to the Treasury of about £850m. In the process, it also drove new Covid-19 infections up by between 8 and 17%, according to one study carried out a few weeks later.
Eat out to help out coincided with several confounders. Firstly tourists coming back from Spain imported the virus. Schools were going back, unis too. As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
I think there is next to no chance of Sunak running into trouble on EO2HO unless he said some really intemperate things, which would seem out of character.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
You may be right but something must be driving that reluctance. Until we find out, speculation will inevitably fill the gap.
I think that is fair comment but I am not convinced Sunak is trying to hide his own actions
Of course not! It’s not as if he ate a curry or something, then you’d be calling for his resignation.
As it happens, I thought EOTO a v good policy. If this were really the issue, and if Sunak were really a leader, he’d front it out.
It was an interesting and well meaning policy that attacked the wrong target at the wrong time. Largely I think because of the lack of planning I was mentioning earlier. The government seemed to think Covid would only have one wave, hence the air bridge and EOTHO to give hospitality a kick start. A smarter move out would have been trying to (a) avoid a further lockdown and (b) working like mad to mitigate it if they couldn't.
For example, for the same money they could have bought enough cheap laptops to give 50% of schoolchildren one to work on, which if not eliminating the economic divide @DecrepiterJohnL commented on earlier would certainly have mitigated it.
Seems to me that people are getting over excited here.
It's already been announced that it's going to take until Summer 2026 for all evidence to be heard. So it's going to be 2027 before any report is issued.
And that's if the current timetable is adhered to. There's every chance it'll all take much longer than scheduled - indeed this Judicial Review is the first step in stringing it out.
So what are we actually saying here? Maybe in 2027 but more likely in 2028 or 2029 a report is going to come out saying Eat Out to Help Out made Covid worse.
I'm sure that's going to have a huge impact on politics in 2028 or 2029.
Isn't the plan for the public hearings to begin this year, so seeing Sunak squirm and obfuscate could be bad for him and his party.
Surely the point is that the evidence HMG are trying to suppress will, when it inevitably comes out soon, be pretty damning for Sunak in some way or other. If we're talking about WhatsApps, it's not hard to see some of the recipients leaking those messages in the next few months, rather than years.
If there's nothing damaging to hide, why try to suppress them?
Seems to me that people are getting over excited here.
It's already been announced that it's going to take until Summer 2026 for all evidence to be heard. So it's going to be 2027 before any report is issued.
And that's if the current timetable is adhered to. There's every chance it'll all take much longer than scheduled - indeed this Judicial Review is the first step in stringing it out.
So what are we actually saying here? Maybe in 2027 but more likely in 2028 or 2029 a report is going to come out saying Eat Out to Help Out made Covid worse.
I'm sure that's going to have a huge impact on politics in 2028 or 2029.
Isn't the plan for the public hearings to begin this year, so seeing Sunak squirm and obfuscate could be bad for him and his party.
Surely the point is that the evidence HMG are trying to suppress will, when it inevitably comes out soon, be pretty damning for Sunak in some way or other. If we're talking about WhatsApps, it's not hard to see some of the recipients leaking those messages in the next few months, rather than years.
If there's nothing damaging to hide, why try to suppress them?
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
Seems to me that people are getting over excited here.
It's already been announced that it's going to take until Summer 2026 for all evidence to be heard. So it's going to be 2027 before any report is issued.
And that's if the current timetable is adhered to. There's every chance it'll all take much longer than scheduled - indeed this Judicial Review is the first step in stringing it out.
So what are we actually saying here? Maybe in 2027 but more likely in 2028 or 2029 a report is going to come out saying Eat Out to Help Out made Covid worse.
I'm sure that's going to have a huge impact on politics in 2028 or 2029.
Isn't the plan for the public hearings to begin this year, so seeing Sunak squirm and obfuscate could be bad for him and his party.
Surely the point is that the evidence HMG are trying to suppress will, when it inevitably comes out soon, be pretty damning for Sunak in some way or other. If we're talking about WhatsApps, it's not hard to see some of the recipients leaking those messages in the next few months, rather than years.
If there's nothing damaging to hide, why try to suppress them?
Something may turn up. Something that means we won't be interested in the COVID enquiry any more. A scandal that discredits the opposition or the enemy. A small war. So delay is always preferable to admitting defeat now. But it's not cost free.
So what is bad enough to make this much awkwardness worthwhile?
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
I agree - I am not particularly incensed by Eat Out To Help Out.
However, the idea that Sunak is blocking this evidence just because it reveals that someone was rude about his policy is 'a view' 'for the birds' 'I have a bridge to sell you'.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
Yes, I don't believe for one moment that EOTHO is the reason behind the government's desire to suppress evidence.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
Scientists advise on science and economists on the economy, it is for government to consider both and formulate a response. That's where the buck stops.
How that decision was arrived at is one of the issues for the enquiry to decide hence the need for the enquiry to look at all evidence.
Obviously the retrospectoscope adds its own frisson, but as someone with medico-legal experience, that is nothing new.
My camera does it scant justice but there is a stunningly beautiful moon visible tonight from Cannock at least. Must be near the perigee and I think the dust is turning it yellow.
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
I agree - I am not particularly incensed by Eat Out To Help Out.
However, the idea that Sunak is blocking this evidence just because it reveals that someone was rude about his policy is 'a view' 'for the birds' 'I have a bridge to sell you'.
It seems the scientists wanted the country in lockdown but subsequently admitted they had not considered the economic price
I am sure Johnson and Sunak were accutely conscious of the economic price and were resistant
In Wales Drakeford imposed a two week lockdown which did not change the course of the virus
This seems to be moving to a lockdown v economic argument and is likely to be along party lines
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
I agree - I am not particularly incensed by Eat Out To Help Out.
However, the idea that Sunak is blocking this evidence just because it reveals that someone was rude about his policy is 'a view' 'for the birds' 'I have a bridge to sell you'.
It seems the scientists wanted the country in lockdown but subsequently admitted they had not considered the economic price
I am sure Johnson and Sunak were accutely conscious of the economic price and were resistant
In Wales Drakeford imposed a two week lockdown which did not change the course of the virus
This seems to be moving to a lockdown v economic argument and is likely to be along party lines
There will be a huge amount of rewriting of history. There was a vocal element that if they had had their way we would just about to come out of lockdown now, and every media outlet bar the Telegraph was lockdown now, every single bloody day for 2 years.
Edit - the Mail were bipolar on this issue, often veering from one extreme to the other within space of a few hours, before finally landing on lockdown.
Government want to remove driving licenses from Just Stop Oil protestors.
Wut
Not far enough. They should also be banned from using natural gas, plastics and pharmaceutical products made from hydrocarbons, at least until they stop being so f******* stupid.
Government want to remove driving licenses from Just Stop Oil protestors.
Wut
Not far enough. They should also be banned from using natural gas, plastics and pharmaceutical products made from hydrocarbons, at least until they stop being so f******* stupid.
I don’t think they can. I’ve never seen one of them interviewed that shows any glimmer of scientific knowledge.
My camera does it scant justice but there is a stunningly beautiful moon visible tonight from Cannock at least. Must be near the perigee and I think the dust is turning it yellow.
Very nice! Don't forget in the opposite half of the sky, Venus reaches its maximum "elongation" away from the sun tomorrow. Afterwards, it will slowly sink back towards the horizon.
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
Scientists advise on science and economists on the economy, it is for government to consider both and formulate a response. That's where the buck stops.
How that decision was arrived at is one of the issues for the enquiry to decide hence the need for the enquiry to look at all evidence.
Obviously the retrospectoscope adds its own frisson, but as someone with medico-legal experience, that is nothing new.
But this just highlights the problem I was trying to discuss a couple of threads back. Any politician who didn’t slavishly follow what turned out to be pretty ordinary advice would have been torn apart by a hysterical press and their opponents for “not caring” enough or “putting profit before lives”. So we were trapped into economically damaging policies that were not in fact necessary.
Just look how much the blessed Nicola was praised for “caring” more by imposing faster and longer lockdowns and more restrictions.
How do we make rational decisions in such an infantilised society? If the Inquiry can answer that one it will be worth every penny.
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
Scientists advise on science and economists on the economy, it is for government to consider both and formulate a response. That's where the buck stops.
How that decision was arrived at is one of the issues for the enquiry to decide hence the need for the enquiry to look at all evidence.
Obviously the retrospectoscope adds its own frisson, but as someone with medico-legal experience, that is nothing new.
But this just highlights the problem I was trying to discuss a couple of threads back. Any politician who didn’t slavishly follow what turned out to be pretty ordinary advice would have been torn apart by a hysterical press and their opponents for “not caring” enough or “putting profit before lives”. So we were trapped into economically damaging policies that were not in fact necessary.
Just look how much the blessed Nicola was praised for “caring” more by imposing faster and longer lockdowns and more restrictions.
How do we make rational decisions in such an infantilised society? If the Inquiry can answer that one it will be worth every penny.
It was pretty obvious from the day the inquiry was announced it would never be about that, rather it will be about politicial point scoring & arse saving by throwing others under the bus.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
Scientists advise on science and economists on the economy, it is for government to consider both and formulate a response. That's where the buck stops.
How that decision was arrived at is one of the issues for the enquiry to decide hence the need for the enquiry to look at all evidence.
Obviously the retrospectoscope adds its own frisson, but as someone with medico-legal experience, that is nothing new.
But this just highlights the problem I was trying to discuss a couple of threads back. Any politician who didn’t slavishly follow what turned out to be pretty ordinary advice would have been torn apart by a hysterical press and their opponents for “not caring” enough or “putting profit before lives”. So we were trapped into economically damaging policies that were not in fact necessary.
Just look how much the blessed Nicola was praised for “caring” more by imposing faster and longer lockdowns and more restrictions.
How do we make rational decisions in such an infantilised society? If the Inquiry can answer that one it will be worth every penny.
It was pretty obvious from the day the inquiry was announced it would never be about that, rather it will be about politicial point scoring & arse saving by throwing others under the bus.
Did anyone not take advantage of "Eat Out to Help Out"?
I didn't nor did i go on a foreign holiday. I spent the summer mostly hanging out in the garden. At that point, seemed unnecessary to take the risk, given the situation.
I was always against the stupud tier listing etc. Rather advocated for a consistent set of rules that we stuck with across the country. Having pubs open in one town, then 2 miles down the road having them closed was bloody idiotic.
As soon as vaccine, i was very much then we need to get back to normal asap.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
'Cambridge is teaching students that Anglo-Saxons did not exist as a distinct ethnic group as part of efforts to undermine “myths of nationalism”.
Britain’s early medieval history is taught by the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, but the terms within its own title are being addressed as part of efforts to make teaching more “anti-racist”.
Its teaching aims to “dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism” by explaining that the Anglo-Saxons were not a distinct ethnic group, according to information from the department.
The department’s approach also aims to show that there were never “coherent” Scottish, Irish and Welsh ethnic identities with ancient roots.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
Did anyone not take advantage of "Eat Out to Help Out"?
I did. I thought it was right to do so. Businesses were really struggling for all the government help. People were losing their jobs. And the restrictions were largely pointless once all who wanted to be had been vaccinated.
So some scientists apparently say it was wrong for the government to try and help restaurants and cafes to get some much needed income after the winter lockdown via 'Eat Out to help out' in summer 2020. Apart from the most austere socialists I would imagine anyone who might even consider voting Tory will probably take Sunak's side on that, as will the hospitality industry
Scientists advise on science and economists on the economy, it is for government to consider both and formulate a response. That's where the buck stops.
How that decision was arrived at is one of the issues for the enquiry to decide hence the need for the enquiry to look at all evidence.
Obviously the retrospectoscope adds its own frisson, but as someone with medico-legal experience, that is nothing new.
But this just highlights the problem I was trying to discuss a couple of threads back. Any politician who didn’t slavishly follow what turned out to be pretty ordinary advice would have been torn apart by a hysterical press and their opponents for “not caring” enough or “putting profit before lives”. So we were trapped into economically damaging policies that were not in fact necessary.
Just look how much the blessed Nicola was praised for “caring” more by imposing faster and longer lockdowns and more restrictions.
How do we make rational decisions in such an infantilised society? If the Inquiry can answer that one it will be worth every penny.
That is a problem for all politicians. We quite often have moral panics based on scant evidence where the press and public clamour for "something to be done".
A politician unable to either manage those expectations or to persuade to a more rational approach is lost. Unfortunately in the era of Populism they often are lost, which is why Populism is not a rational or effective political strategy.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
Religion is a protected characteristic and being a Tory was once almost indistinguishable from being an English Anglican
Rishi is an Anglican?
He went to Winchester, an Anglican school
That doesn't make him an Anglican!
It makes most Tories Anglicans or Protestants certainly so you could make an argument arguing for the Tories to be mullered at the next election is indeed religious hate speech deserving of prosecution.
Remember too preservation of the Church of England as the established church ie a religious principles was one of the key principles which the Tory Party emerged to defend in the 18th century
Government want to remove driving licenses from Just Stop Oil protestors.
Wut
Rather hypocritical of them to drive though?
The one that made me chuckle was one of the twats who went up the Dartford crossing, he is UK national, but was flying in from Eastern Europe to take part in the demonstrations, and flew in for his court appearances.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
Did anyone not take advantage of "Eat Out to Help Out"?
I did. I thought it was right to do so. Businesses were really struggling for all the government help. People were losing their jobs. And the restrictions were largely pointless once all who wanted to be had been vaccinated.
EOTHO was 4 months before vaccination even started.
I supported some of my favourite pubs and restraints by eating outside, or getting takeaway. August was a lovely summer round here.
DeSantis: As president, I recognize that the woke mind virus represents a war on the truth so we will wage a war on the woke. We will fight the woke in education, we will fight the woke in corporations, we will fight the woke in the halls of congress. https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1665086349483835392
Government want to remove driving licenses from Just Stop Oil protestors.
Wut
Not far enough. They should also be banned from using natural gas, plastics and pharmaceutical products made from hydrocarbons, at least until they stop being so f******* stupid.
I don’t think they can. I’ve never seen one of them interviewed that shows any glimmer of scientific knowledge.
Maybe a community payback order involving some subsistence farming might be in order.
Did anyone not take advantage of "Eat Out to Help Out"?
I did. I thought it was right to do so. Businesses were really struggling for all the government help. People were losing their jobs. And the restrictions were largely pointless once all who wanted to be had been vaccinated.
Fair point on the businesses - something needed to be done. (When had the boffins basically worked out that outside with some distancing was basically safe?)
But August 2020- when EO2HO happened was before anyone had been vaccinated. It was like celebrating victory in the Battle of Britain with a lovely firework display.
Great piece by Fraser Nelson on how Facebook works with government against the public interest
'The commercial incentive for me as an editor is now clear. By all means, publish articles about Philip Schofield, Ukraine, the royals – but steer clear of anything taking a critical view of government public health policy. That way you risk being “downrated” by Facebook. Academics fear being marked down as “sceptics” so they have an incentive to avoid the areas that need investigation the most.'
Mark Candymountain has more power than Murdoch, Hearst or Beaverbrook ever had
Did anyone not take advantage of "Eat Out to Help Out"?
I did. I thought it was right to do so. Businesses were really struggling for all the government help. People were losing their jobs. And the restrictions were largely pointless once all who wanted to be had been vaccinated.
Fair point on the businesses - something needed to be done. (When had the boffins basically worked out that outside with some distancing was basically safe?)
But August 2020- when EO2HO happened was before anyone had been vaccinated. It was like celebrating victory in the Battle of Britain with a lovely firework display.
To be fair cases were low, but then we let people go on foreign holidays, mix with 100,000s of people from all over Europe and import delta strain.
It was far worse to have 1000s of people head to a metal hanger, sit there for hours, then get on a confined metal bird for several more hours, then spend 2 weeks getting pissed in bar, restaurants and nightclubs...then let them go and sit outside for the meal in small groups in the UK for an hour.
Delta would have got here, but the decision to allow foreign holidays turbo charged its importation spread widely across the whole of the UK.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
Religion is a protected characteristic and being a Tory was once almost indistinguishable from being an English Anglican
Rishi is an Anglican?
He went to Winchester, an Anglican school
That doesn't make him an Anglican!
It makes most Tories Anglicans or Protestants certainly so you could make an argument arguing for the Tories to be mullered at the next election is indeed religious hate speech deserving of prosecution.
Remember too preservation of the Church of England as the established church ie a religious principles was one of the key principles which the Tory Party emerged to defend in the 18th century
That is nonsense. Most Anglicans are not Christians and not all Christians are Tories. The correlation is so weak that it might well be non-existent.
You're absolutely sure he was referring to Hillsborough? Innocent until proven guilty.
99% of Manchester United fans have condemned this, they know what it refers to, and it isn't about the 2018/19 season.
But do you know for sure? Innocent until proven guilty.
The criminal standard in a courtroom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You are now asking for a higher standard of proof. TSE is gently suggesting that your doubt is not reasonable.
Perhaps he’s calling the the Tories to be mullered at the next election. Even worse that they were in 97.
97 - not enough
Implausible, may be, but can it be ruled out?
As a Tory I find that deeply offensive and threatening. If true I hope the police throw the book at him for this heinous crime
Religion is a protected characteristic and being a Tory was once almost indistinguishable from being an English Anglican
Rishi is an Anglican?
He went to Winchester, an Anglican school
That doesn't make him an Anglican!
It makes most Tories Anglicans or Protestants certainly so you could make an argument arguing for the Tories to be mullered at the next election is indeed religious hate speech deserving of prosecution.
Remember too preservation of the Church of England as the established church ie a religious principles was one of the key principles which the Tory Party emerged to defend in the 18th century
That is nonsense. Most Anglicans are not Christians and not all Christians are Tories. The correlation is so weak that it might well be non-existent.
Nope, the definition of 'Tory' includes 'a member or supporter of a major British political group of the 18th and early 19th centuries favoring at first the Stuarts and later royal authority and the established church and seeking to preserve the traditional political structure and defeat parliamentary reform.'
So as its original purpose included maintaining the Anglican church as the established church calling for Tories to be 'mullered' is in my view religious hatred https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Tory
Your statement 'Most Anglicans are not Christians' is also illogical
Comments
As ever in a perfect world stopping the virus could take priority over everything, but the worlds not perfect.
Almost disappointed.
"Well, there's not much we can do then".
End of investigation.
Almost opposite event - when I still smoked I cast around for a bin to use to safely dispose of the end of a ciggy on a busy street. No sign of one so I guiltily put it out by smooshing it underfoot. Walked into a shop to buy some stuff. Queue two policemen who had been outside coming in and physically manhandling me out of the shop to give me a fine for my heinous crime. Turned out they'd been carefully standing in front of the one bin so you couldn't see it.
There are two sides to many of these stories, and as I have posted Edmund himself questioned their advice later on the grounds they had not considered the economic impact
It is fairly well known Johnson and Sunak were sceptical of lockdowns and many are coming round to this view
:: dashed foes face with a silk hanky ::
How is this a leak that could undermine the inquiry? As far as I can see it's a comment from a Prof John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
He's entitled to his views and maybe, given his position, the Inquiry will hear them first hand. There's nothing to stop him talking to the press outside the Inquiry though, as far as I'm aware.
The quality of the policy (value for money etc) is a little arguable, but that's true of anything in uncharted territory. It wasn't ludicrous to want to kickstart economic activity whilst rates were low, and many people genuinely appreciated the respite in a grim period.
I say that as not a Sunak fan at all. I'm just not buying that this is relevant to the current reluctance to hand over messages.
Certainly had that thought. And doubt I was only one.
But that isn't a major scandal. Sometimes novel interventions don't quite match the hopes for them, but quite a few people got a half price lunch.
Did it also contribute to COVID spike later? Maybe a bit, but many countries had that further wave.
And again, I'd repeat that it's unambiguously a policy matter, so the outcome of the judicial review really isn't relevant to it.
'The commercial incentive for me as an editor is now clear. By all means, publish articles about Philip Schofield, Ukraine, the royals – but steer clear of anything taking a critical view of government public health policy. That way you risk being “downrated” by Facebook. Academics fear being marked down as “sceptics” so they have an incentive to avoid the areas that need investigation the most.'
Mark Candymountain has more power than Murdoch, Hearst or Beaverbrook ever had
https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/02/facebook-power-no-transparency-silence-covid-dissent/
It's already been announced that it's going to take until Summer 2026 for all evidence to be heard. So it's going to be 2027 before any report is issued.
And that's if the current timetable is adhered to. There's every chance it'll all take much longer than scheduled - indeed this Judicial Review is the first step in stringing it out.
So what are we actually saying here? Maybe in 2027 but more likely in 2028 or 2029 a report is going to come out saying Eat Out to Help Out made Covid worse.
I'm sure that's going to have a huge impact on politics in 2028 or 2029.
Which is dominated by families, with lots of young kids, but with plenty of folks from under 1 to over 90. Weather is perfect, sunny and 70s Fahrenheit.
Local library branch, park, coffee shops, restaurants, shops are not just going with the flow, but leading the way.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that we do have somewhat above-average proportion of gay people, in particular lesbians. Who tend toward salt-of-the-earth way more than wild-and-crazy.
What was the time gap from the date when the Chilcott Inquiry was set up until the date Blair gave evidence?
Surely all written evidence will have to be submitted and reviewed by Hallett before she is ready to conduct oral hearings?
As it happens, I thought EOTO a v good policy.
If this were really the issue, and if Sunak were really a leader, he’d front it out.
British government seems to be run more amateurishly than I thought possible.
Well, eating his helper out.
For example, for the same money they could have bought enough cheap laptops to give 50% of schoolchildren one to work on, which if not eliminating the economic divide @DecrepiterJohnL commented on earlier would certainly have mitigated it.
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1665090888744202241?t=5up5swOe_zsRNTisKACrRQ&s=19
If there's nothing damaging to hide, why try to suppress them?
Does anyone recall the Sinclair C5?
Here's a flatpack electric car that costs less than £10,000
The vehicle, produced by Swedish firm Luvly, has two removable batteries that do not require car chargers
So what is bad enough to make this much awkwardness worthwhile?
(For the avoidance of doubt, this is a joke.)
However, the idea that Sunak is blocking this evidence just because it reveals that someone was rude about his policy is 'a view' 'for the birds' 'I have a bridge to sell you'.
Wut
How that decision was arrived at is one of the issues for the enquiry to decide hence the need for the enquiry to look at all evidence.
Obviously the retrospectoscope adds its own frisson, but as someone with medico-legal experience, that is nothing new.
I am sure Johnson and Sunak were accutely conscious of the economic price and were resistant
In Wales Drakeford imposed a two week lockdown which did not change the course of the virus
This seems to be moving to a lockdown v economic argument and is likely to be along party lines
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-idUSKBN2740KT
Edit - the Mail were bipolar on this issue, often veering from one extreme to the other within space of a few hours, before finally landing on lockdown.
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/sunday-telegraph-front-page-2023-06-04/
Things must be bad if loyalist papers are having to dangle that carrot.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/tv-series-dismantle-colditz-mythology-racism-brit-officers/
Don't forget in the opposite half of the sky, Venus reaches its maximum "elongation" away from the sun tomorrow. Afterwards, it will slowly sink back towards the horizon.
So we were trapped into economically damaging policies that were not in fact necessary.
Just look how much the blessed Nicola was praised for “caring” more by imposing faster and longer lockdowns and more restrictions.
How do we make rational decisions in such an infantilised society? If the Inquiry can answer that one it will be worth every penny.
I was always against the stupud tier listing etc. Rather advocated for a consistent set of rules that we stuck with across the country. Having pubs open in one town, then 2 miles down the road having them closed was bloody idiotic.
As soon as vaccine, i was very much then we need to get back to normal asap.
In an ideal world we would be learning the lessons (really) of the pandemic and how to do things better in future.
In reality it’s going to be political point scoring
Britain’s early medieval history is taught by the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, but the terms within its own title are being addressed as part of efforts to make teaching more “anti-racist”.
Its teaching aims to “dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism” by explaining that the Anglo-Saxons were not a distinct ethnic group, according to information from the department.
The department’s approach also aims to show that there were never “coherent” Scottish, Irish and Welsh ethnic identities with ancient roots.
The increased focus on anti-racism comes amid a broader debate over the continued use of terms like “Anglo-Saxon”, with some in academia alleging that the ethnonym is used to support “racist” ideas of a native English identity'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/03/anglo-saxons-arent-real-cambridge-student-fight-nationalism/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
A politician unable to either manage those expectations or to persuade to a more rational approach is lost. Unfortunately in the era of Populism they often are lost, which is why Populism is not a rational or effective political strategy.
Remember too preservation of the Church of England as the established church ie a religious principles was one of the key principles which the Tory Party emerged to defend in the 18th century
Very eco.
I supported some of my favourite pubs and restraints by eating outside, or getting takeaway. August was a lovely summer round here.
DeSantis: As president, I recognize that the woke mind virus represents a war on the truth so we will wage a war on the woke. We will fight the woke in education, we will fight the woke in corporations, we will fight the woke in the halls of congress.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1665086349483835392
But August 2020- when EO2HO happened was before anyone had been vaccinated. It was like celebrating victory in the Battle of Britain with a lovely firework display.
It was far worse to have 1000s of people head to a metal hanger, sit there for hours, then get on a confined metal bird for several more hours, then spend 2 weeks getting pissed in bar, restaurants and nightclubs...then let them go and sit outside for the meal in small groups in the UK for an hour.
Delta would have got here, but the decision to allow foreign holidays turbo charged its importation spread widely across the whole of the UK.
So as its original purpose included maintaining the Anglican church as the established church calling for Tories to be 'mullered' is in my view religious hatred
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Tory
Your statement 'Most Anglicans are not Christians' is also illogical