Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
I wouldn't trust Burnham on this. Remember the first inquiry into the Stafford scandal? It took the coalition to launch a proper public inquiry.
Burnham was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) during the height of the scandal. His fingers are all over it.
To be fair, although I agree with your main point, one problem we have in our system of government is that most of our senior civil servants do routinely lie.
Even the slightly more intelligent ones who know which way up to hold the pencil.
Then again, it's easy to have a situation where a civil servant lies, and the minister knows he is being lied to, but that's a convenient situation for both of them.
These 'officials' need naming. I assume that, as in all good government, the lies were documented?
A lot of the essential documents from the critical years are missing. Sometimes deliberately shredded.
I can't help but notice interest rates appear to be going.... precisely nowhere.
Could this be the new normal?
The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures, If it goes sub 2%, there'll be the usual old,nonsense about how wonderful Sunak and the Tories are - the Party will unite around Sunak and Hunt and claim they should be given another five years, etc.
For them, cutting interest rates equals self preservation.
“The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures”.
Why shouldn’t they? It’s Labours fault.
They made such a fuss out of Truss crashing the economy (truth is she didn’t) and that the high mortgages are all down to Liz Truss fault (truth is they arn’t) it allows Sunak to claim credit for miraculously turning the economy around from that mess Truss left him. But out of the last five years Truss has had economic control for about 50 days, who had the control the rest of the time?
Labour have handed the economic win to Sunak by focussing on 50 days, not the other 1300.
Norman Lamont wasn't wrong about the green shoots in 1997, but he still lost his seat. If anything, a recovering economy will mean people are less afraid that Labour will stuff it up. The Tories can hardly claim credit for the economic cycle. The point is, no matter what now. The die is cast and the Tories ate doomed.
Green Shoots was the runup to 1992, wasn't it? 1997 was Britain Is Booming, which was a complete flop. When was Yes It Hurt Yes It Worked?
Long story short, governments don't get credit for clearing up their own mess. And rightly so.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
Burnham claims basically he asked questions and was blatantly lied to by officials.
There's an inquiry in itself right there.
I wouldn't trust Burnham on this. Remember the first inquiry into the Stafford scandal? It took the coalition to launch a proper public inquiry.
Burnham was Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality) during the height of the scandal. His fingers are all over it.
To be fair, although I agree with your main point, one problem we have in our system of government is that most of our senior civil servants do routinely lie.
Even the slightly more intelligent ones who know which way up to hold the pencil.
The slightly more intelligent ones know *how* to lie, which makes them even more dangerous.
In that famous documentary “Yes, Minister”, they were very good at avoiding the actual speaking of the untruth directly to the minister, as well as making sure that anything too contentious was only ever discussed verbally.
Feel a bit ashamed myself as I must confess I had no idea whatsoever how bad this was and how many people were involved and for how long it had festered as one government after another lied and hid the truth.
Just appalling.
What was new to me was doctors conducting clinical trials which they knew to be hazardous on patients without either their consent or knowledge. I'd long had a sense that politicians had brushed something under the carpet.
That it's forty years ago means trials are unlikely - but that it took so long for it to be made public by an enquiry which politicians said for decades was unnecessary is pretty stunning.
The depth of Ken Clarke's apparent wilful ignorance, and his continuing refusal to accept he might have been at fault, was also a disappointment to someone who had previously rather admired him as a politician.
Unfortunately Ken Clarke, as gifted a politican as he is/was, has always has that very bumptious and arrogant side to him.
Generally people have given him the benefit of the doubt and turned a blind eye to his arrogance as he's always been a likable character, but on this occasion he needed to rise to the occasion and he singularly failed...
It seems to me that the important date from which to start asking questions about ministers is 1983. That was when the WHO and Lancet both issued reports on the possibility of infected blood products.Since then the following have been Health Secretary:
Norman Fowler John Moore Ken Clarke William Waldegrave Virginia Bottomley Stephen Dorrell Frank Dobson Alan Milburn John Reid Alan Johnson Andy Burnham Andrew Landsley Jeremy Hunt.
Hunt became Health secretary in 2012 but it wasn't until May came to power as PM that anything was actually done about having a proper investigation.
All of these politicians could and should have known and done something about the scandal but none of them did.
The complete and utter failure of HMG/British state across both Conservative and Labour governments over 30+ years and an incredible 14 Health Secretarys speaks for itself.
There's nothing much else to say really is there? It's just a day that shames Britain.
The. End.
The problem is more basic than that. The question that they focused on was “were we negligent?”
I think that the answer to that question was obviously yes but at the time the argument was made that the limits on knowledge meant that the risk was not foreseeable and therefore the NHS was not at fault.
Without liability being admitted the NHS provided treatment for those affected but did not offer compensation.
There are at least 2 things wrong with this approach. Firstly, it makes the government judge in its own cause. They are the only people with the information and they determine the outcome. Getting the information has proven inordinately difficult.
Secondly, it misses the point. People have been harmed in horrible ways through no fault of their own. A no fault compensation scheme is the obvious answer but this was fiercely resisted by a department always under financial pressure.
The first problem is endemic across many scandals. People judging their own case are conflicted and self interested. They seem incapable of being objective or fair.
This is interesting, from a startup venture capitalist.
https://tomblomfield.com/post/750852175114174464/taking-risk I just spent a week talking with some exceptional students from three of the UK’s top universities; Cambridge, Oxford and Imperial College. Along with UCL, these British universities represent 4 of the top 10 universities in the world. The US - a country with 5x more people and 8x higher GDP - has the same number of universities in the global top 10. On these visits, I was struck by the world-class quality of technical talent, especially in AI and biosciences. But I was also struck by something else. After their studies, most of these smart young people wanted to go and work at companies like McKinsey, Goldman Sachs or Google. I now live in San Francisco and invest in early-stage startups at Y Combinator, and it’s striking how undergraduates at top US universities start companies at more than 5x the rate of their British-educated peers. Oxford is ranked 50th in the world, while Cambridge is 61st. Imperial just makes the list at #100. I have been thinking a lot about why this is. The UK certainly doesn’t lack the talent or education, and I don’t think it’s any longer about access to capital. People like to talk about the role of government incentives, but San Francisco politicians certainly haven’t done much to help the startup ecosystem over the last few years, while the UK government has passed a raft of supportive measures. Instead, I think it’s something more deep-rooted - in the UK, the ideas of taking risk and of brazen, commercial ambition are seen as negatives...
The question for Ministers is what happens if they get into a playground or nursery.
Had to go to minor injuries unit for a tetanus and antibiotics after a dog bit me whilst leafletting on Friday. There are too many dogs in this country, I hope the soaring costs of vet bills will reduce the numbers.
For those not suffering from scandal fatigue, this week should be a climactic one in the Post Office Inquiry. Paula Vennels is scheduled for three days, Wednesday to Friday. Will she, I wonder, have noted the public outrage at the duplicity shown by the guilty ones in the Blood scandal? Will she decide it is time to come clean? Don't hold your breath.
Incidentally, today's witness will be much less well known than PV and may be thought of by some as a disappointing undercard to the main event, but don't be misled. Alwyn Lyons joined the PO in 1984 and rose to become Company Secretary in 2017. In Nick Wallis's book on the scandal, she is described as a 'furiously loyal, old fashioned company retainer' who had the ear of the Board. in 2012 one of the Second Sight investigators mentioned to her that he had been told by Fujitsu that remore access to Horizon was indeed possible. She denied it:
'No that's completely wrong. There is no question of remote access. It's impossible. We know it can't happen.'
I wonder if she will be so forthright today.
“I was lied to and victimised. And when I learned the truth I did the only thing possible. I orchestrated a law breaking coverup.”
Suffice it to say that he'd quickly attract the ban hammer if he posted on PB.
This is who the Minnesota Republican Party just nominated to run against Amy Klobuchar. There are far worse tweets still live on his page that I'm not posting because I don't want to overly disturb people. https://x.com/atrupar/status/1792597723599749616
The question for Ministers is what happens if they get into a playground or nursery.
Had to go to minor injuries unit for a tetanus and antibiotics after a dog bit me whilst leafletting on Friday. There are too many dogs in this country, I hope the soaring costs of vet bills will reduce the numbers.
As a resource for everyone who will be leafleting and canvassing in the election later this year (or early next) the Animal and Plant Health Agency have published a dataset of the dog population per postcode district.
I was going to quote increased dog populations, which seem to be up from 9 million to 10 million in 19/20 to 21/22 - but I have also seen 13 millions as the latter number. So they seem to be unreliable.
And remember your wooden spoon (or fork), leaflets through letterboxes for the pushing of.
The question for Ministers is what happens if they get into a playground or nursery.
Had to go to minor injuries unit for a tetanus and antibiotics after a dog bit me whilst leafletting on Friday. There are too many dogs in this country, I hope the soaring costs of vet bills will reduce the numbers.
Suffice it to say that he'd quickly attract the ban hammer if he posted on PB.
This is who the Minnesota Republican Party just nominated to run against Amy Klobuchar. There are far worse tweets still live on his page that I'm not posting because I don't want to overly disturb people. https://x.com/atrupar/status/1792597723599749616
Thought for a moment that I was reading a tweet by our own malcolm.
Comments
Sometimes deliberately shredded.
NEW THREAD
Long story short, governments don't get credit for clearing up their own mess. And rightly so.
In that famous documentary “Yes, Minister”, they were very good at avoiding the actual speaking of the untruth directly to the minister, as well as making sure that anything too contentious was only ever discussed verbally.
I think that the answer to that question was obviously yes but at the time the argument was made that the limits on knowledge meant that the risk was not foreseeable and therefore the NHS was not at fault.
Without liability being admitted the NHS provided treatment for those affected but did not offer compensation.
There are at least 2 things wrong with this approach. Firstly, it makes the government judge in its own cause. They are the only people with the information and they determine the outcome. Getting the information has proven inordinately difficult.
Secondly, it misses the point. People have been harmed in horrible ways through no fault of their own. A no fault compensation scheme is the obvious answer but this was fiercely resisted by a department always under financial pressure.
The first problem is endemic across many scandals. People judging their own case are conflicted and self interested. They seem incapable of being objective or fair.
https://tomblomfield.com/post/750852175114174464/taking-risk
I just spent a week talking with some exceptional students from three of the UK’s top universities; Cambridge, Oxford and Imperial College. Along with UCL, these British universities represent 4 of the top 10 universities in the world. The US - a country with 5x more people and 8x higher GDP - has the same number of universities in the global top 10.
On these visits, I was struck by the world-class quality of technical talent, especially in AI and biosciences. But I was also struck by something else. After their studies, most of these smart young people wanted to go and work at companies like McKinsey, Goldman Sachs or Google.
I now live in San Francisco and invest in early-stage startups at Y Combinator, and it’s striking how undergraduates at top US universities start companies at more than 5x the rate of their British-educated peers. Oxford is ranked 50th in the world, while Cambridge is 61st. Imperial just makes the list at #100. I have been thinking a lot about why this is. The UK certainly doesn’t lack the talent or education, and I don’t think it’s any longer about access to capital.
People like to talk about the role of government incentives, but San Francisco politicians certainly haven’t done much to help the startup ecosystem over the last few years, while the UK government has passed a raft of supportive measures.
Instead, I think it’s something more deep-rooted - in the UK, the ideas of taking risk and of brazen, commercial ambition are seen as negatives...
This is who the Minnesota Republican Party just nominated to run against Amy Klobuchar. There are far worse tweets still live on his page that I'm not posting because I don't want to overly disturb people.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1792597723599749616
And remember your wooden spoon (or fork), leaflets through letterboxes for the pushing of.