NEWS FLASH - SCOTUS RULES STATES MAY REMOVE OR PUNISH "FAITHLESS" PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.
One of the cases originated in WA State, the other was from Colorado.
ANOTHER NEWS FLASH - FORMER GOV > AMBASSADOR > PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL JOHN HUNTSMAN LOSES UTAH REPUBLICAN PRIMARY FOR GOVERNOR TO LT GOV SPENCER COX.
Very close result. Note that Huntsman contracted Covid but recovered. Also note it looks like he wore out his welcome, perhaps due to his lame 2016 presidential effort.
Interesting, especially about faithless electors. Trump lost two last time IIRC.
Clinton lost five electors: four from WA State & one from Hawaii.
In addition, there were two Clinton electors - one from Colorado, one from Minnesota - who attempted to vote for someone else BUT were replaced by alternate electors.
Note that in 2020 faithless electors were motivated by a desire to somehow keep Trump from winning by getting GOP electors to dump him, in return for Democratic electors dumping Hillary.
NEWS UPDATE - La Maxwell transported to US Bureau of Prisons holding facility in Brooklyn. Federal prosecutors have requested judge to schedule her arraignment & bail hearing July 10.
One member of her NY legal team is leading attorney specializing in white collar crime, a former SDNY prosecutor himself with experience in complex frauds cases.
Sounds like just the guy you'd want IF you want to make a deal with the feds.
Re: loss by Jon Huntsman in Utah Republican gubernatorial primary, note that Americans are NOT as a rule eager to vote for retreds, defined as former elected officials seeking similar elected position after a period out of office.
Seems voters have tendency to think, been there, done that. Whereas psephological phychology is different with electeds in office seeking re-election; trend here is for voters to go along, unless there is some kind of specific problem or voter fatigue, or generalized political change or crisis.
We need groundtroops to protect the Falklands and Gibraltar, to keep our NATO commitments to maintain international security and contain Putin and to fulfil our peacekeeping obligations as a UN Security Council member.
Assuming all those things are worth doing the point is: you can't use 1st Div for any of them without pulling support units out of other formations.
Troops have to be transported, fed, armed and protected. Infantry on its own without those supporting functions has very limited applications.
Surely it merely prevents 1 Division being deployed as a unit? Individual battalions of Infantry are still deployable, by means of transfer. Surely 1 Division functions as a depot and training formation rather than a combat unit.
Battalions of Infantry are so valuable that the Royal Navy and RAF both operate them. Indeed are not line Infantry the one essential bit? Since the end of Gulf War 2, have we deployed either Tanks or Artillery on the battlefield? We certainly have deployed Infantry on multiple occasions.
Other support branches do get deployed. I have friends in RAMC, Royal Signals an Royal Logistics, all of whom have been heavily deployed, sometimes back to back tours, in support of Infantry.
I suspect current recruitment and retention policies are part of the reason we are under strength in supporting units. Much easier to move to Civvy St if you have a transferable skill.
NEWS UPDATE - La Maxwell transported to US Bureau of Prisons holding facility in Brooklyn. Federal prosecutors have requested judge to schedule her arraignment & bail hearing July 10.
One member of her NY legal team is leading attorney specializing in white collar crime, a former SDNY prosecutor himself with experience in complex frauds cases.
Sounds like just the guy you'd want IF you want to make a deal with the feds.
I suspect that some form of settlement was negotiated before the arrest. Maxwell does not come across as stupid or ill-advised and it seems unlikely that would start spilling the beans the moment she was arrested. Add in the fact that the FBI had apparently known where she was for some time, and comments regarding her cooperation and the likelihood of her naming names, and it all begins to sound like a deal has already been done.
Neil Oliver is mentioned down thread for parting company with National Trust Scotland following his comments regarding David Starkey.
I don't have much time for either of these gentlemen but I was recently surprised to hear Oliver passionately arguing about the dangers of shutting down every voice we disagree with. He essentially took the view that dissenting voices are unlikely to change their mind without debate, and that silencing unwelcome opinions did not make them go away.
Control of fishing waters is pretty much the only issue the government can put one over the SNP (who want to rejoin the EU and hand it straight back) in Scotland.
Should fisheries policy be configured on the basis of “putting one over” another political party? I think you’ve just highlighted one of the key weaknesses in the New UKIP party: public policy is always a toy for them to advance their own interests or to stymie their opponents, never to work in the interests of ordinary people like fishermen, fish-processing workers, fish-related haulage and distribution nor fishing communities. The Tories would gleefully throw all of them on the scrapheap if they could gain an inch for their banker chums.
"Things have changed quickly in Hong Kong. From Monday, even nursery children were being taught about the new National Security Law (NSL) as part of a government directive to all schools in the city."
BBC Breakfast have just shown couples being reunited after months due to the wives who worked in care homes moved in to protect the residents.
Clearly the government wasn't asking staff to that - and those people deserve huge praise for making a massive sacrifice - but the idea that all care homes would have acted perfectly isn't plausible.
However, I expect a lot of backtracking, "I didn't mean it like that", etc. etc. over the next 24 hours.
I see Establishment toadie Neil Oliver has been sacked by the National Trust for Scotland, after supporting... wait for it... David Starkey. You couldn’t make it up.
What is it about Unionists that makes them take out a whacking great shotgun, aim for their foot, and pull the trigger?
Shame on National Trust for Scotland is all I will say, Oliver is an excellent historian
He's.... He's not a historian.
He is, he is a historian and archaelogist
He’s an archaeologist. Dunno where you’re getting your info about him being an historian. Spouting BritNat propaganda and re-writing history to glorify his London masters does not an historian make.
You’re funny, you think cos someone on the telly reading a script about the past automatically makes them a historian. It might explain why you consider yourself an expert on Scots’ electoral behaviour. Never confuse the monkey for the organ-grinder.
Probably, Cummings now wants to slash the army and scrap the Royal Marines apparently as if he has not done enough already to annoy traditional Tories this will have the colonels in the shires putting his face on their dartboards! https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1279756872904577025?s=20
Given the left and Remainers all despise the man, if he loses the Tory heartlands too who exactly does he have left bar a few techno geek libertarians and Boris and Gove?
DomWeb is absolutely correct on this. What is the point of 1st Division? It has over half of the army's infantry but will shortly have no artillery, logistics, comms or engineering support as they have been moved to 3rd Division to enable the 2nd STRIKE brigade.
We certainly won't be doing another land war in Asia until Scottish independence is implemented so the army is very unbalanced with far too much unsupported and therefore undeployable infantry.
I doubt Johnson will do it as he seems temperamentally more suited to the traditional "Keeping Up Appearances" defence policy wherein things with zero or negative military value (Red Arrows, BoB flight, etc.) are revered and retained at the expense of actual capabilities.
We need groundtroops to protect the Falklands and Gibraltar, to keep our NATO commitments to maintain international security and contain Putin and to fulfil our peacekeeping obligations as a UN Security Council member.
Plus of course to maintain order in Scotland in the event of illegal indyrefs
So now HY wants to send in the troops. These are deep, deep waters. If any other PBers knows HY in real life then I suggest they proffer an arm round the shoulder and a word to the wise. He is not doing the Conservative nor the Unionist cause any favours whatsoever with his repeated calls for state violence to hinder Scottish self-determination.
HY is thankfully an isolated case, but if his armed force meme starts to spread among the more weak-minded BritNat community, you can wave bye bye to Middle Scotland.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
I see Establishment toadie Neil Oliver has been sacked by the National Trust for Scotland, after supporting... wait for it... David Starkey. You couldn’t make it up.
What is it about Unionists that makes them take out a whacking great shotgun, aim for their foot, and pull the trigger?
Shame on National Trust for Scotland is all I will say, Oliver is an excellent historian
He's.... He's not a historian.
Also a complete and utter arsehole, it is not surprising an oaf like HY FUD would have a crush on him.
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
The Isle of Man COVID outbreak was mainly in a Care Home which the government took over after the absentee owners couldn’t get its act together....
Having read the quote, I fail to see the fuss.
It is quite obvious the standard procedures for infection control have turned out not to be good enough against Covid. I don't think this was entirely clear at the beginning. Care homes are supposed to be able to deal with infections, so it wasn't necessarily a big assumption to think that they would be able to deal with Covid patients. Norovirus is also pretty deadly in the same setting, and they should all have a plan for it.
It is also obvious (having seen the insides of a few) that there are care homes, and there are care homes. Some are excellent, and others are not. Perhaps the inspections need to be improved so that bad ones can be sorted out, and there need to be more visits from NHS healthcare workers. That's pretty much what the PM seems to be saying.
If there is a case of norovirus, PHE closes the home to any admissions and visitors. Your argument is absurd. This is a much deadlier disease for the vulnerable elderly. The government claims to have thrown a “protective ring” around homes when its policy directly seeded infections in them.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting...
NEWS UPDATE - La Maxwell transported to US Bureau of Prisons holding facility in Brooklyn. Federal prosecutors have requested judge to schedule her arraignment & bail hearing July 10.
One member of her NY legal team is leading attorney specializing in white collar crime, a former SDNY prosecutor himself with experience in complex frauds cases.
Sounds like just the guy you'd want IF you want to make a deal with the feds.
I suspect that some form of settlement was negotiated before the arrest. Maxwell does not come across as stupid or ill-advised and it seems unlikely that would start spilling the beans the moment she was arrested. Add in the fact that the FBI had apparently known where she was for some time, and comments regarding her cooperation and the likelihood of her naming names, and it all begins to sound like a deal has already been done.
Think deal is in process, she may say she's spilling all the beans, but prosecutors will NOT just take her word for it, will take their time questioning her and her story. Friday feds will argue she should be denied bail as obvious flight risk.
Working out the perimeters & parameters (or visa versa) & details of deal is something a former SDNY fraud prosecutor ought to be good at.
So how good is good? Reportedly Maxwell's liable to get 35 years if convictions & max sentences secured on all criminal counts so far announced. Note that in federal prison system very little time off for good behavior & etc., so most convicted serve full sentences.
SO maybe 10 years in prison would be a good deal for her? Not sure she'll be that fortunate. OR that His Foul Lowness will send her any gift boxes from Deal Old Blighty to cheer her up.
Probably, Cummings now wants to slash the army and scrap the Royal Marines apparently as if he has not done enough already to annoy traditional Tories this will have the colonels in the shires putting his face on their dartboards! https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1279756872904577025?s=20
Given the left and Remainers all despise the man, if he loses the Tory heartlands too who exactly does he have left bar a few techno geek libertarians and Boris and Gove?
DomWeb is absolutely correct on this. What is the point of 1st Division? It has over half of the army's infantry but will shortly have no artillery, logistics, comms or engineering support as they have been moved to 3rd Division to enable the 2nd STRIKE brigade.
We certainly won't be doing another land war in Asia until Scottish independence is implemented so the army is very unbalanced with far too much unsupported and therefore undeployable infantry.
I doubt Johnson will do it as he seems temperamentally more suited to the traditional "Keeping Up Appearances" defence policy wherein things with zero or negative military value (Red Arrows, BoB flight, etc.) are revered and retained at the expense of actual capabilities.
We need groundtroops to protect the Falklands and Gibraltar, to keep our NATO commitments to maintain international security and contain Putin and to fulfil our peacekeeping obligations as a UN Security Council member.
Plus of course to maintain order in Scotland in the event of illegal indyrefs
So now HY wants to send in the troops. These are deep, deep waters. If any other PBers knows HY in real life then I suggest they proffer an arm round the shoulder and a word to the wise. He is not doing the Conservative nor the Unionist cause any favours whatsoever with his repeated calls for state violence to hinder Scottish self-determination.
HY is thankfully an isolated case, but if his armed force meme starts to spread among the more weak-minded BritNat community, you can wave bye bye to Middle Scotland.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
Probably, Cummings now wants to slash the army and scrap the Royal Marines apparently as if he has not done enough already to annoy traditional Tories this will have the colonels in the shires putting his face on their dartboards! https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1279756872904577025?s=20
Given the left and Remainers all despise the man, if he loses the Tory heartlands too who exactly does he have left bar a few techno geek libertarians and Boris and Gove?
DomWeb is absolutely correct on this. What is the point of 1st Division? It has over half of the army's infantry but will shortly have no artillery, logistics, comms or engineering support as they have been moved to 3rd Division to enable the 2nd STRIKE brigade.
We certainly won't be doing another land war in Asia until Scottish independence is implemented so the army is very unbalanced with far too much unsupported and therefore undeployable infantry.
I doubt Johnson will do it as he seems temperamentally more suited to the traditional "Keeping Up Appearances" defence policy wherein things with zero or negative military value (Red Arrows, BoB flight, etc.) are revered and retained at the expense of actual capabilities.
We need groundtroops to protect the Falklands and Gibraltar, to keep our NATO commitments to maintain international security and contain Putin and to fulfil our peacekeeping obligations as a UN Security Council member.
Plus of course to maintain order in Scotland in the event of illegal indyrefs
So now HY wants to send in the troops. These are deep, deep waters. If any other PBers knows HY in real life then I suggest they proffer an arm round the shoulder and a word to the wise. He is not doing the Conservative nor the Unionist cause any favours whatsoever with his repeated calls for state violence to hinder Scottish self-determination.
HY is thankfully an isolated case, but if his armed force meme starts to spread among the more weak-minded BritNat community, you can wave bye bye to Middle Scotland.
I can only think he's trolling us now.
Nobody could seriously be that reprehensible.
That is indeed the kindest and most empathetic interpretation. Either he has very serious mental health issues or he is trolling. The other two possibilities don’t bear thinking about:
- he finds it therapeutic/amusing to threaten people with violence - he genuinely thinks that the British state should kill and injure Scots in order to maintain the Union
Blackford on R4 - ScotGov Policy is to “eliminate the virus” or alternatively “keep it as low as possible” - pick one matey, different objectives with different strategies.
Probably, Cummings now wants to slash the army and scrap the Royal Marines apparently as if he has not done enough already to annoy traditional Tories this will have the colonels in the shires putting his face on their dartboards! https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1279756872904577025?s=20
Given the left and Remainers all despise the man, if he loses the Tory heartlands too who exactly does he have left bar a few techno geek libertarians and Boris and Gove?
DomWeb is absolutely correct on this. What is the point of 1st Division? It has over half of the army's infantry but will shortly have no artillery, logistics, comms or engineering support as they have been moved to 3rd Division to enable the 2nd STRIKE brigade.
We certainly won't be doing another land war in Asia until Scottish independence is implemented so the army is very unbalanced with far too much unsupported and therefore undeployable infantry.
I doubt Johnson will do it as he seems temperamentally more suited to the traditional "Keeping Up Appearances" defence policy wherein things with zero or negative military value (Red Arrows, BoB flight, etc.) are revered and retained at the expense of actual capabilities.
We need groundtroops to protect the Falklands and Gibraltar, to keep our NATO commitments to maintain international security and contain Putin and to fulfil our peacekeeping obligations as a UN Security Council member.
Plus of course to maintain order in Scotland in the event of illegal indyrefs
So now HY wants to send in the troops. These are deep, deep waters. If any other PBers knows HY in real life then I suggest they proffer an arm round the shoulder and a word to the wise. He is not doing the Conservative nor the Unionist cause any favours whatsoever with his repeated calls for state violence to hinder Scottish self-determination.
HY is thankfully an isolated case, but if his armed force meme starts to spread among the more weak-minded BritNat community, you can wave bye bye to Middle Scotland.
I can only think he's trolling us now.
Nobody could seriously be that reprehensible.
That is indeed the kindest and most empathetic interpretation. Either he has very serious mental health issues or he is trolling. The other two possibilities don’t bear thinking about:
- he finds it therapeutic/amusing to threaten people with violence - he genuinely thinks that the British state should kill and injure Scots in order to maintain the Union
I would go with the latter , he is obviously a nutter.
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
Neil Oliver is mentioned down thread for parting company with National Trust Scotland following his comments regarding David Starkey.
I don't have much time for either of these gentlemen but I was recently surprised to hear Oliver passionately arguing about the dangers of shutting down every voice we disagree with. He essentially took the view that dissenting voices are unlikely to change their mind without debate, and that silencing unwelcome opinions did not make them go away.
He’s been on the Nat hit list since having the temerity to suggest Indy was a bad idea.
His 3 year contract ends in September, as planned.
His tweet in admiration of Starkey was BEFORE the “damn blacks” comment.
Blackford on R4 - ScotGov Policy is to “eliminate the virus” or alternatively “keep it as low as possible” - pick one matey, different objectives with different strategies.
Well that explains where Nicola wants to close the border with the rest of the UK. Unless you are located like New Zealand and ban everyone from entering you are not going to eliminate it.
In similar news, the first Barbados holiday flight arrived yesterday, an American was found to have Covid 19 on arrival.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting...
Is anyone making that argument ?
Not that I’ve seen. There appears to be an unstated implication that if we don’t believe that care home owners are noble philanthropic saints (which we don’t believe, of course), the care home deaths had nothing to do with the Government policy to send them known infected patients.
When spelt out, it does seem a bit of a leap. I think it’s one of those things where people aim for one area we don’t like to ensure they get the blame (usually to prevent someone they don’t want to be disliked getting blame, rightly or wrongly).
Re defense of Gibraltar and Falklands, remove menaces to world peace and end massive drain of British taxpayers for protection of loyal cigarette boaters & sheep shaggers - here's how
1) secure lasting peace with Spain by granting them Rockall in exchange for surrendering all claims to Gib; added bonus of embroiling Madrid & Spanish seamen with Dublin and Irish seagulls.
2) in similar diplomatic (or is it dypsomanic?) coup, persuade Argentina to relinquish claims to Las Malvinas in exchange for the Isle of Wight AND perpetual duty-free importation of s&m leather goods, flash-frozen beef and tango school teachers - a true win/win for everybody except cows & the flat-footed.
3) demand immediate return of Heligoland to the British Crown, on grounds that Kaiser never sent a personal "thank you" note to his grand-mummy Queen Vic for such as nice present. (This after she's already given him Mt Kilimanjaro for his birthday, and no card then too.) This will unite a divided nation once again, as Boris Johnson hurls defiance at Teutonic aggression just like his idol Winston Churchill used to do.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They aren't angels - the care sector has been a Bad Thing since Waiting for God was on the Telly. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that this policy issued a policy to NHS trusts to discharge patients from hospital back to their care homes without testing. Which directly led to the epidemic in the care home system and unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Obviously the government and especially shagger can't be held responsible for those deaths so the blame must sit with the care homes. Instead of criticising the govern,ent for the reign of death by means of government policy the care sector and relatives of the dead should instead be supporting the government which is spending an awful lot of money on other things and aren't the care homes run by communist unions related to Kier Starmer? Look! A squirrel!
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
Trust Richard and Philip to pop up and defend him, no change there. Shades of Trump supporters there, defending the indefensible.
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
Sums up the Tories: incapable of taking responsibility. It was always a big boy that done it and ran away.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They aren't angels - the care sector has been a Bad Thing since Waiting for God was on the Telly. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that this policy issued a policy to NHS trusts to discharge patients from hospital back to their care homes without testing. Which directly led to the epidemic in the care home system and unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Obviously the government and especially shagger can't be held responsible for those deaths so the blame must sit with the care homes. Instead of criticising the govern,ent for the reign of death by means of government policy the care sector and relatives of the dead should instead be supporting the government which is spending an awful lot of money on other things and aren't the care homes run by communist unions related to Kier Starmer? Look! A squirrel!
The NHS shifted to "Command and Control" in March, with suspension of local decision making. That is still the case, and a large part of what went wrong. It wasn't the poor bloody infantry making the decisions.
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
It does make it dishonest, though.
No it doesn't - let's try again
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
Who among we English wouldn’t rather have Nicola managing us through the virus crisis rather than Boris? Whose homework was always late.
I wouldn't put it that way, but I do think she is a talent, and would have made a fine PM.
Since those clearly don’t apply to Boris, I suggest I was spot on.
I think your point was unfair. Policies followed in Scotland and England have been widely similar, and I think to a large extent the UK Government has suffered by having England on its plate.
Make your mind up: either England is an asset or a burden. It can’t be both.
Do NOT need a poll to believe PM's latest malapropism is NOT enhancing his image. Methinks his advisors want to throw a banana peel in front of him to send him back to the hospital - he's been free-falling ever since he was discharged.
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
It does make it dishonest, though.
No it doesn't - let's try again
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
And are you sure that all care homes followed the correct procedures over the last few months?
I remember the days of the government refusing to make any decision hoping it would stop distracting us all from the Triumph of the Brexit. Then when forced to act every answer to every question at the daily press conference was "we've followed the science!". Repeat it often enough and hopefully people forget that they didn't. And now that they have long since binned off what the scientists think and demanded we Drink for England anything that went wrong must have been the scientists fault because they followed the science.
As for the increasingly silly "stop criticising us you should be thanking us" line from Shagger when he Thumps The Lectern in erm erm erm Anger - sod off. Yes you're spending a gazillion pounds on furlough and supporting business and that's a Good Thing. You could have done that and saved tens of thousands of lives by not ordering the discharge of diseased old people into care homes.
Blackford on R4 - ScotGov Policy is to “eliminate the virus” or alternatively “keep it as low as possible” - pick one matey, different objectives with different strategies.
Well that explains where Nicola wants to close the border with the rest of the UK. Unless you are located like New Zealand and ban everyone from entering you are not going to eliminate it.
Even Guernsey (67 days no new cases) is not trying to “eliminate” the virus. In a world where the virus exists with no vaccine elimination is a fool’s errand. If this is indeed the strategy Sturgeon is pursuing she’s been badly advised.
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
It does make it dishonest, though.
No it doesn't - let's try again
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
And are you sure that all care homes followed the correct procedures over the last few months?
How many straws are you trying to clutch at while refusing to admit that your argument is completely invalid?
Keeping to the topic in hand the statement was "Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID."
What does that have to do with procedures within care homes as procedures within care homes only matter once the resident has entered the care home?
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
It does make it dishonest, though.
No it doesn't - let's try again
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
And are you sure that all care homes followed the correct procedures over the last few months?
What is the correct procedure when you've been shipped by government policy the equivalent of human plague carriers into your closed environment?
I used to work with one of the CQC;s predecessor authorities; I was seconded to the local inspection team from an NHS Trust to advise on pharmacy issues, including medicine handling. After I retired from the NHS I had a part-time job for a few years advising a firm of Care Home operators on what I had once Inspected. And at one time I was involved with the discharge of geriatric patients, often at very short notice. Like many of us, of course, I've had family members in Homes.
So I've seen quite a lot of Homes, and like any other area of life there are the good, the average and the bad. I can easily imagine a situation in which, faced with the immediate prospect of acute wards being swamped, hospital managements insisted on patients being discharged somewhere, anywhere, immediately, without time for testing. I can also , looking back imagine a situation in which homes acceded to such a request, and where their managements assumed that everything necessary had been done by the hospital. I can envisage Care Home top managements where they expected their local managers to get on with it, and not to worry them unless there was something overwhelming. I can also, easily, envisage situations where Home Managements tried heroically to cope with less than adequate resources.
Care Homes have, as others have said, been a neglected sector for far too long, and worse, a sector where the mantra 'public bad, private good, has been applied. I suggest that one of the problems is one of perception; too many of those at the top of society, if they have relatives in homes, have nothing to do with the poor ones, and only see the good, very expensive ones.
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
It does make it dishonest, though.
No it doesn't - let's try again
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
Technically it needs two patients for the plural to apply. Not very helpful but this is pb......
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
It does make it dishonest, though.
No it doesn't - let's try again
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
Technically it needs two patients for the plural to apply. Not very helpful but this is pb......
OK, "Were 2 patients discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID."
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
It does make it dishonest, though.
No it doesn't - let's try again
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
And are you sure that all care homes followed the correct procedures over the last few months?
How many straws are you trying to clutch at while refusing to admit that your argument is completely invalid?
Keeping to the topic in hand the statement was "Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID."
What does that have to do with procedures within care homes as procedures within care homes only matter once the resident has entered the care home?
I'm a statistician - I have it drilled into me that I have to be precise with my language so that nothing can be misinterpreted. Just looking at the Guardian piece (I'll admit, I hadn't), I see it says:
Around 25,000 patients were discharged into care homes without being tested for coronavirus, an official report said.
Now, I don't know whether that's been added in since last night, but that's a more honest statement - better still would be to put it in the context of how many were tested (though 25,000 sounds like a big number).
Not for the first time, the Guardian headline and the general hyper-indignation don't accurately reflect what Boris is actually quoted as saying, in the very same article. “We discovered too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures in the way that they could have but we’re learning lessons the whole time. Most important is to fund them properly … but we will also be looking at ways to make sure the care sector long term is properly organised and supported." is not blaming anyone, indeed it points to the government not having understood quickly enough the reality on the ground. and having to learn lessons.
Lord knows there's plenty to criticise the government for, without hyper-ventilating about a marginally less than perfect expression of a not particularly controversial point.
Well put.
If anyone other than Boris had said that it would be pretty uncontroversial to suggest the Care sector needs more government support and finance.
The Guardian also repeats the lie that the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID. They did test for COVID - just not all patients.
Ah, that makes it OK then. Thousands die, thousands have a nasty illness, but it is the Guadian's fault for missing out the word "all".
I don't think the lack of the word all makes it a lie - if the NHS failed to test a single patient that was enough..
It does make it dishonest, though.
No it doesn't - let's try again
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
And are you sure that all care homes followed the correct procedures over the last few months?
How many straws are you trying to clutch at while refusing to admit that your argument is completely invalid?
Keeping to the topic in hand the statement was "Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID."
What does that have to do with procedures within care homes as procedures within care homes only matter once the resident has entered the care home?
I'm a statistician - I have it drilled into me that I have to be precise with my language so that nothing can be misinterpreted. Just looking at the Guardian piece (I'll admit, I hadn't), I see it says:
Around 25,000 patients were discharged into care homes without being tested for coronavirus, an official report said.
Now, I don't know whether that's been added in since last night, but that's a more honest statement - better still would be to put it in the context of how many were tested (though 25,000 sounds like a big number).
Of the 25,000 what are the estimates of the numbers that actually had it?
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They aren't angels - the care sector has been a Bad Thing since Waiting for God was on the Telly. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that this policy issued a policy to NHS trusts to discharge patients from hospital back to their care homes without testing. Which directly led to the epidemic in the care home system and unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Obviously the government and especially shagger can't be held responsible for those deaths so the blame must sit with the care homes. Instead of criticising the govern,ent for the reign of death by means of government policy the care sector and relatives of the dead should instead be supporting the government which is spending an awful lot of money on other things and aren't the care homes run by communist unions related to Kier Starmer? Look! A squirrel!
On Johnson's first (or second) speech back after Covid he referred to the care homes scandal in Scotland and Wales (no mention of anywhere else) so clearly, if only as a distraction from their role, Johnson or someone else detected there was political mileage to be made in criticising a failing sector run by socialist cabals lead by Starmer allies.
I think initially, the thought was we can blame Edinburgh and Cardiff for this, and perhaps no one will notice what has happened in England. As that ruse failed to gain traction, the thought wasperhaps we can distance the government by blaming the institutions and their staff instead. In the grand scheme, I am not sure how that works.
My own experience of care homes is that the well run ones (normally top end privately owned establishments) would probably have considered the implications and rejected hospital leavers. The more down market homes, privately owned but reliant on local authority money would have shovelled hospital leavers in on the whim of the hospitals and local authorities concerned. On arrival they would be "looked after" be underpaid, undertrained staff.
LAs are failing, hospital trusts are failing, care homes owners are failing, surely that reflects on government?
The testimony from NHS trusts seems to be that very few people discharged into care homes were reintroduced to the care home population without being tested.
Once again Cummings' genius plan of "never apologise" generates another day of crap headlines for BoZo
4D chess lads...
It's as though they've thrown a dead cat in order to distract from the build up to Sunak's economic recovery plan. I'll be surprised if care homes are not the focus of Wednesday's PMQs now. Utter genius, Baldrick style.
Way back when George Wallace was Mr Big in Alabama politics, he was term-limited and could not run for re-election. So he ran his (first) wife, Lurleen, and she was duly elected.
Nobody eve said Mrs Wallace was any great shakes as governor; she was a figurehead who did what her husband told her.
One thing, however she did do. When she heard reports about poor conditions in state facilities for the mentally ill, she decided to take a look. What she saw shocked her profoundly. I may not know much or be able to do much, she said, but by God, she WAS the Governor, and if she was going to do ANYTHING, she was going to do something for for those people, something to improve their terrible living conditions. And she did.
Will be interesting when the record of Covid 2020 is written of by future observers, which elected leaders did the best they could. And which did not.
Once again Cummings' genius plan of "never apologise" generates another day of crap headlines for BoZo
4D chess lads...
DC is playing 8D Chinese Backgammon at this point. Those tories who don't yet realise he hates them and thinks they are part of the problem can't even.
It's as though they've thrown a dead cat in order to distract from the build up to Sunak's economic recovery plan. I'll be surprised if care homes are not the focus of Wednesday's PMQs now. Utter genius, Baldrick style.
It's as though they've thrown a dead cat in order to distract from the build up to Sunak's economic recovery plan. I'll be surprised if care homes are not the focus of Wednesday's PMQs now. Utter genius, Baldrick style.
The testimony from NHS trusts seems to be that very few people discharged into care homes were reintroduced to the care home population without being tested.
Testimony = claim. They would claim that, wouldn't they? Best to read the next few sentences which debunks the claim. And the title which sums it all up: "Yes, patients were discharged to care homes without Covid-19 tests"
NEWS UPDATE - La Maxwell transported to US Bureau of Prisons holding facility in Brooklyn. Federal prosecutors have requested judge to schedule her arraignment & bail hearing July 10.
One member of her NY legal team is leading attorney specializing in white collar crime, a former SDNY prosecutor himself with experience in complex frauds cases.
Sounds like just the guy you'd want IF you want to make a deal with the feds.
I suspect that some form of settlement was negotiated before the arrest. Maxwell does not come across as stupid or ill-advised and it seems unlikely that would start spilling the beans the moment she was arrested. Add in the fact that the FBI had apparently known where she was for some time, and comments regarding her cooperation and the likelihood of her naming names, and it all begins to sound like a deal has already been done.
Think deal is in process, she may say she's spilling all the beans, but prosecutors will NOT just take her word for it, will take their time questioning her and her story. Friday feds will argue she should be denied bail as obvious flight risk.
Working out the perimeters & parameters (or visa versa) & details of deal is something a former SDNY fraud prosecutor ought to be good at.
So how good is good? Reportedly Maxwell's liable to get 35 years if convictions & max sentences secured on all criminal counts so far announced. Note that in federal prison system very little time off for good behavior & etc., so most convicted serve full sentences.
SO maybe 10 years in prison would be a good deal for her? Not sure she'll be that fortunate. OR that His Foul Lowness will send her any gift boxes from Deal Old Blighty to cheer her up.
I still suspect that she could have more power than we imagine, particularly with an election just months away.
Use of 4D chess before GE2019 - bit ropey, its not a great line but still ...
after?
'kin hell.
Fond memories of the days back when many PB’ers, myself sadly included, used to speculate that Mrs May must surely have a deeply cunning strategy which would shortly pull an amazing outcome from the shambles all around her. Little did we realise that Godot had ran off with it.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
Private sector health businesses more interested in their profits than their patients?
Well knock me down with a feather, who could have anticipated that.
Once again Cummings' genius plan of "never apologise" generates another day of crap headlines for BoZo
4D chess lads...
The only real question is what piece of crap Brexit or similar news is being hidden by these headlines...
It’s crowding out Rishi’s £3bn “Green investment” - Number 2 item on R4 8am news.
Fancy that, BBC running with a badly misquoted Guardian headline and the reaction to it, which is negative for the government, as opposed to the green investment story which might be positive for it.
The testimony from NHS trusts seems to be that very few people discharged into care homes were reintroduced to the care home population without being tested.
Testimony = claim. They would claim that, wouldn't they? Best to read the next few sentences which debunks the claim. And the title which sums it all up: "Yes, patients were discharged to care homes without Covid-19 tests"
All? Many? Some? A few?
That’s what we don’t know - although “All” seems unlikely - and that reflected the advice at the time to only test symptomatic patients - in mid-April, when asymptomatic transmission was understood testing of all discharges was required. Additionally COVID symptoms can present differently in the very elderly which was not understood at the start - which is how Guernsey missed its Care Home outbreak.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They aren't angels - the care sector has been a Bad Thing since Waiting for God was on the Telly. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that this policy issued a policy to NHS trusts to discharge patients from hospital back to their care homes without testing. Which directly led to the epidemic in the care home system and unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Obviously the government and especially shagger can't be held responsible for those deaths so the blame must sit with the care homes. Instead of criticising the govern,ent for the reign of death by means of government policy the care sector and relatives of the dead should instead be supporting the government which is spending an awful lot of money on other things and aren't the care homes run by communist unions related to Kier Starmer? Look! A squirrel!
On Johnson's first (or second) speech back after Covid he referred to the care homes scandal in Scotland and Wales (no mention of anywhere else) so clearly, if only as a distraction from their role, Johnson or someone else detected there was political mileage to be made in criticising a failing sector run by socialist cabals lead by Starmer allies.
I think initially, the thought was we can blame Edinburgh and Cardiff for this, and perhaps no one will notice what has happened in England. As that ruse failed to gain traction, the thought wasperhaps we can distance the government by blaming the institutions and their staff instead. In the grand scheme, I am not sure how that works.
My own experience of care homes is that the well run ones (normally top end privately owned establishments) would probably have considered the implications and rejected hospital leavers. The more down market homes, privately owned but reliant on local authority money would have shovelled hospital leavers in on the whim of the hospitals and local authorities concerned. On arrival they would be "looked after" be underpaid, undertrained staff.
LAs are failing, hospital trusts are failing, care homes owners are failing, surely that reflects on government?
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They aren't angels - the care sector has been a Bad Thing since Waiting for God was on the Telly. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that this policy issued a policy to NHS trusts to discharge patients from hospital back to their care homes without testing. Which directly led to the epidemic in the care home system and unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Obviously the government and especially shagger can't be held responsible for those deaths so the blame must sit with the care homes. Instead of criticising the govern,ent for the reign of death by means of government policy the care sector and relatives of the dead should instead be supporting the government which is spending an awful lot of money on other things and aren't the care homes run by communist unions related to Kier Starmer? Look! A squirrel!
On Johnson's first (or second) speech back after Covid he referred to the care homes scandal in Scotland and Wales (no mention of anywhere else) so clearly, if only as a distraction from their role, Johnson or someone else detected there was political mileage to be made in criticising a failing sector run by socialist cabals lead by Starmer allies.
I think initially, the thought was we can blame Edinburgh and Cardiff for this, and perhaps no one will notice what has happened in England. As that ruse failed to gain traction, the thought wasperhaps we can distance the government by blaming the institutions and their staff instead. In the grand scheme, I am not sure how that works.
My own experience of care homes is that the well run ones (normally top end privately owned establishments) would probably have considered the implications and rejected hospital leavers. The more down market homes, privately owned but reliant on local authority money would have shovelled hospital leavers in on the whim of the hospitals and local authorities concerned. On arrival they would be "looked after" be underpaid, undertrained staff.
LAs are failing, hospital trusts are failing, care homes owners are failing, surely that reflects on government?
I have had quite a lot of experience of care homes and hospices and it is a mixed picture. The hospices are excellent but care homes are across the spectrum. The idea they cannot be criticised is nonsense but the critic should be directed at the owners and managers not staff
As far as your last paragraoh is concerned it reflects on all the political class who fight every proposal for change no more so than Theresa May's dementia tax. Furthermore the government have called for a cross party consensus and only Corbyn refused to co-operate. Let us be positive and hope under Starmer the whole complex matter can be resolved expeditiously
Once again Cummings' genius plan of "never apologise" generates another day of crap headlines for BoZo
4D chess lads...
The only real question is what piece of crap Brexit or similar news is being hidden by these headlines...
It’s crowding out Rishi’s £3bn “Green investment” - Number 2 item on R4 8am news.
Fancy that, BBC running with a badly misquoted Guardian headline and the reaction to it, which is negative for the government, as opposed to the green investment story which might be positive for it.
...but your boy set the stone rolling with his crass comments last evening!
Why can't we be honest about care homes, they are simply private hospices. Nobody comes out alive and the owner makes good money out of end of life care, quite often pretty poor care.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They charge a fortune because 24/7 care for people with dementia is expensive. Which is why so many care homes struggle to make a profit.
What evidence have you got that the owners are minted or making a ridiculous profit?
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They aren't angels - the care sector has been a Bad Thing since Waiting for God was on the Telly. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that this policy issued a policy to NHS trusts to discharge patients from hospital back to their care homes without testing. Which directly led to the epidemic in the care home system and unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Obviously the government and especially shagger can't be held responsible for those deaths so the blame must sit with the care homes. Instead of criticising the govern,ent for the reign of death by means of government policy the care sector and relatives of the dead should instead be supporting the government which is spending an awful lot of money on other things and aren't the care homes run by communist unions related to Kier Starmer? Look! A squirrel!
On Johnson's first (or second) speech back after Covid he referred to the care homes scandal in Scotland and Wales (no mention of anywhere else) so clearly, if only as a distraction from their role, Johnson or someone else detected there was political mileage to be made in criticising a failing sector run by socialist cabals lead by Starmer allies.
I think initially, the thought was we can blame Edinburgh and Cardiff for this, and perhaps no one will notice what has happened in England. As that ruse failed to gain traction, the thought wasperhaps we can distance the government by blaming the institutions and their staff instead. In the grand scheme, I am not sure how that works.
My own experience of care homes is that the well run ones (normally top end privately owned establishments) would probably have considered the implications and rejected hospital leavers. The more down market homes, privately owned but reliant on local authority money would have shovelled hospital leavers in on the whim of the hospitals and local authorities concerned. On arrival they would be "looked after" be underpaid, undertrained staff.
LAs are failing, hospital trusts are failing, care homes owners are failing, surely that reflects on government?
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They aren't angels - the care sector has been a Bad Thing since Waiting for God was on the Telly. That hasn't changed. What has changed is that this policy issued a policy to NHS trusts to discharge patients from hospital back to their care homes without testing. Which directly led to the epidemic in the care home system and unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people.
Obviously the government and especially shagger can't be held responsible for those deaths so the blame must sit with the care homes. Instead of criticising the govern,ent for the reign of death by means of government policy the care sector and relatives of the dead should instead be supporting the government which is spending an awful lot of money on other things and aren't the care homes run by communist unions related to Kier Starmer? Look! A squirrel!
On Johnson's first (or second) speech back after Covid he referred to the care homes scandal in Scotland and Wales (no mention of anywhere else) so clearly, if only as a distraction from their role, Johnson or someone else detected there was political mileage to be made in criticising a failing sector run by socialist cabals lead by Starmer allies.
I think initially, the thought was we can blame Edinburgh and Cardiff for this, and perhaps no one will notice what has happened in England. As that ruse failed to gain traction, the thought wasperhaps we can distance the government by blaming the institutions and their staff instead. In the grand scheme, I am not sure how that works.
My own experience of care homes is that the well run ones (normally top end privately owned establishments) would probably have considered the implications and rejected hospital leavers. The more down market homes, privately owned but reliant on local authority money would have shovelled hospital leavers in on the whim of the hospitals and local authorities concerned. On arrival they would be "looked after" be underpaid, undertrained staff.
LAs are failing, hospital trusts are failing, care homes owners are failing, surely that reflects on government?
I have had quite a lot of experience of care homes and hospices and it is a mixed picture. The hospices are excellent but care homes are across the spectrum. The idea they cannot be criticised is nonsense but the critic should be directed at the owners and managers not staff
As far as your last paragraoh is concerned it reflects on all the political class who fight every proposal for changevno more so than Theresa May's dementia tax. Furthermore the government have called for a cross party consensus and only Corbyn refused to co-operate. Let us be positive and hope under Starmer the whole complex matter can be resolved expeditiously
From my own experience the sector isn't just broken, it is beyond repair. That said there are a few excellent homes. They should be the beacon out of this mess. It is the fault of government in Wales and Scotland as Johnson rightly pointed out. But where does that leave his own role in England?
As for it being Corbyn's fault, whereas I am normally happy to leave the ordure at his door, this time, I would have to say, the government are in charge to hell with Corbyn.
Or more accurately nothing is "banned" but company bosses tell staff to use language which they believe will sell them most homes.
Shouldn't be banned, of course, but it's an expression which sounds as if Nietzsche had gone into a side line selling houses. Maybe the world would be a better place if he had.
NEWS UPDATE - La Maxwell transported to US Bureau of Prisons holding facility in Brooklyn. Federal prosecutors have requested judge to schedule her arraignment & bail hearing July 10.
One member of her NY legal team is leading attorney specializing in white collar crime, a former SDNY prosecutor himself with experience in complex frauds cases.
Sounds like just the guy you'd want IF you want to make a deal with the feds.
I suspect that some form of settlement was negotiated before the arrest. Maxwell does not come across as stupid or ill-advised and it seems unlikely that would start spilling the beans the moment she was arrested. Add in the fact that the FBI had apparently known where she was for some time, and comments regarding her cooperation and the likelihood of her naming names, and it all begins to sound like a deal has already been done.
Think deal is in process, she may say she's spilling all the beans, but prosecutors will NOT just take her word for it, will take their time questioning her and her story. Friday feds will argue she should be denied bail as obvious flight risk.
Working out the perimeters & parameters (or visa versa) & details of deal is something a former SDNY fraud prosecutor ought to be good at.
So how good is good? Reportedly Maxwell's liable to get 35 years if convictions & max sentences secured on all criminal counts so far announced. Note that in federal prison system very little time off for good behavior & etc., so most convicted serve full sentences.
SO maybe 10 years in prison would be a good deal for her? Not sure she'll be that fortunate. OR that His Foul Lowness will send her any gift boxes from Deal Old Blighty to cheer her up.
I still suspect that she could have more power than we imagine, particularly with an election just months away.
Well, she ain't gonna be let out on bail - think that's a pretty safe bet. AND she will do time, question is, how much.
Methinks the biggest political impact in 2020, is fact that chief prosecutor who filed the re-newed cases against Epstein and Maxwell, and who was in charge of subsequent investigation, was fired a few weeks ago by - guess who?
Once again Cummings' genius plan of "never apologise" generates another day of crap headlines for BoZo
4D chess lads...
The only real question is what piece of crap Brexit or similar news is being hidden by these headlines...
It’s crowding out Rishi’s £3bn “Green investment” - Number 2 item on R4 8am news.
Fancy that, BBC running with a badly misquoted Guardian headline and the reaction to it, which is negative for the government, as opposed to the green investment story which might be positive for it.
...but your boy set the stone rolling with his crass comments last evening!
Ah right it's his fault he was deliberately misquoted by a dodgy newspaper with an axe to grind.
Boris reminds us once again that under the veneer he is a dishonest, dishonourable, self-serving shit. 🤷♂️
Difficult to argue with that.
But you forgot incompetent. He can't run a whelk stall.
I suspect the latter the most important. Whether he had been briefed on some sort of message on Care Homes before yesterday’s comment it evidently “came out wrong” given the furious back peddling from No.10. Probably didn’t read his brief properly.
Once again Cummings' genius plan of "never apologise" generates another day of crap headlines for BoZo
4D chess lads...
The only real question is what piece of crap Brexit or similar news is being hidden by these headlines...
It’s crowding out Rishi’s £3bn “Green investment” - Number 2 item on R4 8am news.
Fancy that, BBC running with a badly misquoted Guardian headline and the reaction to it, which is negative for the government, as opposed to the green investment story which might be positive for it.
...but your boy set the stone rolling with his crass comments last evening!
Ah right it's his fault he was deliberately misquoted by a dodgy newspaper with an axe to grind.
NEWS UPDATE - La Maxwell transported to US Bureau of Prisons holding facility in Brooklyn. Federal prosecutors have requested judge to schedule her arraignment & bail hearing July 10.
One member of her NY legal team is leading attorney specializing in white collar crime, a former SDNY prosecutor himself with experience in complex frauds cases.
Sounds like just the guy you'd want IF you want to make a deal with the feds.
I suspect that some form of settlement was negotiated before the arrest. Maxwell does not come across as stupid or ill-advised and it seems unlikely that would start spilling the beans the moment she was arrested. Add in the fact that the FBI had apparently known where she was for some time, and comments regarding her cooperation and the likelihood of her naming names, and it all begins to sound like a deal has already been done.
Think deal is in process, she may say she's spilling all the beans, but prosecutors will NOT just take her word for it, will take their time questioning her and her story. Friday feds will argue she should be denied bail as obvious flight risk.
Working out the perimeters & parameters (or visa versa) & details of deal is something a former SDNY fraud prosecutor ought to be good at.
So how good is good? Reportedly Maxwell's liable to get 35 years if convictions & max sentences secured on all criminal counts so far announced. Note that in federal prison system very little time off for good behavior & etc., so most convicted serve full sentences.
SO maybe 10 years in prison would be a good deal for her? Not sure she'll be that fortunate. OR that His Foul Lowness will send her any gift boxes from Deal Old Blighty to cheer her up.
How long does she survive a deal, when members of the Aryan Brotherhood are hired to dispose of her?
While it's clearly true that some (nobody knows how many) patients were discharged from hospitals into care homes without being tested, are we not in danger of missing the bigger issue, which I suspect is care home staff?
I suspect much of the transmission in care homes was/is from staff, particularly those who are peripatetic, often agency workers, working on zero contract hours and, logically, in the poorer care homes. The failure here was in not testing staff, even more so than residents. And of course staff spread it within their communities as well, if C-19 positive.
I don't think there was any capacity to test staff on the scale necessary in the first couple of months of the crisis. When Hancock and the PM said they had thrown "a protective ring around care homes right from the start", this was clearly not true. Regardless of who is to blame, lack of testing of staff must have been a major factor in the spread.
The transformation of care home owners from money grubbing, greedy arseholes to modern saints who would never take shortcuts to save money certainly is interesting.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
At the height of the outbreak, there were lots of care homes demanding the government provide them with PPE. My parents kept making the point that if they are privately run, then they should pay for it themselves given the amount they charge.
The amount that they charge presumably doesn't cover the costs of pandemic levels of PPE though.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
They charge an absolute fortune and the owners are minted.
They charge a fortune because 24/7 care for people with dementia is expensive. Which is why so many care homes struggle to make a profit.
What evidence have you got that the owners are minted or making a ridiculous profit?
In an interview with BBC Newsnight, CHPI director David Rowlands said that the industry loses “hundreds of millions” of pounds in the form of "rental payments to offshore landlords, in the form of profit, in the form of management fees and in the form of rental payments again to offshore companies.”
Once again Cummings' genius plan of "never apologise" generates another day of crap headlines for BoZo
4D chess lads...
The only real question is what piece of crap Brexit or similar news is being hidden by these headlines...
It’s crowding out Rishi’s £3bn “Green investment” - Number 2 item on R4 8am news.
Fancy that, BBC running with a badly misquoted Guardian headline and the reaction to it, which is negative for the government, as opposed to the green investment story which might be positive for it.
...but your boy set the stone rolling with his crass comments last evening!
Ah right it's his fault he was deliberately misquoted by a dodgy newspaper with an axe to grind.
Comments
In addition, there were two Clinton electors - one from Colorado, one from Minnesota - who attempted to vote for someone else BUT were replaced by alternate electors.
Note that in 2020 faithless electors were motivated by a desire to somehow keep Trump from winning by getting GOP electors to dump him, in return for Democratic electors dumping Hillary.
"Estate agents banned from saying 'master bedroom' due to concerns over slavery and sexism links"
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/estate-agents-banned-master-bedrooms-slavery-a4488896.html
One member of her NY legal team is leading attorney specializing in white collar crime, a former SDNY prosecutor himself with experience in complex frauds cases.
Sounds like just the guy you'd want IF you want to make a deal with the feds.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140514-how-extreme-isolation-warps-minds
Seems voters have tendency to think, been there, done that. Whereas psephological phychology is different with electeds in office seeking re-election; trend here is for voters to go along, unless there is some kind of specific problem or voter fatigue, or generalized political change or crisis.
Battalions of Infantry are so valuable that the Royal Navy and RAF both operate them. Indeed are not line Infantry the one essential bit? Since the end of Gulf War 2, have we deployed either Tanks or Artillery on the battlefield? We certainly have deployed Infantry on multiple occasions.
Other support branches do get deployed. I have friends in RAMC, Royal Signals an Royal Logistics, all of whom have been heavily deployed, sometimes back to back tours, in support of Infantry.
I suspect current recruitment and retention policies are part of the reason we are under strength in supporting units. Much easier to move to Civvy St if you have a transferable skill.
I don't have much time for either of these gentlemen but I was recently surprised to hear Oliver passionately arguing about the dangers of shutting down every voice we disagree with. He essentially took the view that dissenting voices are unlikely to change their mind without debate, and that silencing unwelcome opinions did not make them go away.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-06/fear-descends-over-hong-kong-as-first-person-to-be-charged-under-new-law-appears-in-court
Clearly the government wasn't asking staff to that - and those people deserve huge praise for making a massive sacrifice - but the idea that all care homes would have acted perfectly isn't plausible.
However, I expect a lot of backtracking, "I didn't mean it like that", etc. etc. over the next 24 hours.
You’re funny, you think cos someone on the telly reading a script about the past automatically makes them a historian. It might explain why you consider yourself an expert on Scots’ electoral behaviour. Never confuse the monkey for the organ-grinder.
HY is thankfully an isolated case, but if his armed force meme starts to spread among the more weak-minded BritNat community, you can wave bye bye to Middle Scotland.
The original decision not to test patients before sending them back to care homes was obviously wrong, however, the different death rates within the care sector will definitely show which ones had proper procedures in place and which ones decided it was too expensive.
The government claims to have thrown a “protective ring” around homes when its policy directly seeded infections in them.
The anger is about that.
It seems reasonable for the government that is shouldering the cost of furlough etc to shoulder the cost of pandemic PPE too.
Working out the perimeters & parameters (or visa versa) & details of deal is something a former SDNY fraud prosecutor ought to be good at.
So how good is good? Reportedly Maxwell's liable to get 35 years if convictions & max sentences secured on all criminal counts so far announced. Note that in federal prison system very little time off for good behavior & etc., so most convicted serve full sentences.
SO maybe 10 years in prison would be a good deal for her? Not sure she'll be that fortunate. OR that His Foul Lowness will send her any gift boxes from Deal Old Blighty to cheer her up.
Nobody could seriously be that reprehensible.
- he finds it therapeutic/amusing to threaten people with violence
- he genuinely thinks that the British state should kill and injure Scots in order to maintain the Union
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1280385405259517957
His 3 year contract ends in September, as planned.
His tweet in admiration of Starkey was BEFORE the “damn blacks” comment.
But, you know, Nats and facts...
In similar news, the first Barbados holiday flight arrived yesterday, an American was found to have Covid 19 on arrival.
There appears to be an unstated implication that if we don’t believe that care home owners are noble philanthropic saints (which we don’t believe, of course), the care home deaths had nothing to do with the Government policy to send them known infected patients.
When spelt out, it does seem a bit of a leap. I think it’s one of those things where people aim for one area we don’t like to ensure they get the blame (usually to prevent someone they don’t want to be disliked getting blame, rightly or wrongly).
1) secure lasting peace with Spain by granting them Rockall in exchange for surrendering all claims to Gib; added bonus of embroiling Madrid & Spanish seamen with Dublin and Irish seagulls.
2) in similar diplomatic (or is it dypsomanic?) coup, persuade Argentina to relinquish claims to Las Malvinas in exchange for the Isle of Wight AND perpetual duty-free importation of s&m leather goods, flash-frozen beef and tango school teachers - a true win/win for everybody except cows & the flat-footed.
3) demand immediate return of Heligoland to the British Crown, on grounds that Kaiser never sent a personal "thank you" note to his grand-mummy Queen Vic for such as nice present. (This after she's already given him Mt Kilimanjaro for his birthday, and no card then too.) This will unite a divided nation once again, as Boris Johnson hurls defiance at Teutonic aggression just like his idol Winston Churchill used to do.
Obviously the government and especially shagger can't be held responsible for those deaths so the blame must sit with the care homes. Instead of criticising the govern,ent for the reign of death by means of government policy the care sector and relatives of the dead should instead be supporting the government which is spending an awful lot of money on other things and aren't the care homes run by communist unions related to Kier Starmer? Look! A squirrel!
Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID.
If the answer to that is yes the statement "the NHS discharged patients into Care Homes without testing for COVID" is true...
As for the increasingly silly "stop criticising us you should be thanking us" line from Shagger when he Thumps The Lectern in erm erm erm Anger - sod off. Yes you're spending a gazillion pounds on furlough and supporting business and that's a Good Thing. You could have done that and saved tens of thousands of lives by not ordering the discharge of diseased old people into care homes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/22/pandemic-zero-coronavirus-britain
Keeping to the topic in hand the statement was "Was a single patient discharged into a care home without being tested for COVID."
What does that have to do with procedures within care homes as procedures within care homes only matter once the resident has entered the care home?
Like many of us, of course, I've had family members in Homes.
So I've seen quite a lot of Homes, and like any other area of life there are the good, the average and the bad. I can easily imagine a situation in which, faced with the immediate prospect of acute wards being swamped, hospital managements insisted on patients being discharged somewhere, anywhere, immediately, without time for testing.
I can also , looking back imagine a situation in which homes acceded to such a request, and where their managements assumed that everything necessary had been done by the hospital. I can envisage Care Home top managements where they expected their local managers to get on with it, and not to worry them unless there was something overwhelming. I can also, easily, envisage situations where Home Managements tried heroically to cope with less than adequate resources.
Care Homes have, as others have said, been a neglected sector for far too long, and worse, a sector where the mantra 'public bad, private good, has been applied.
I suggest that one of the problems is one of perception; too many of those at the top of society, if they have relatives in homes, have nothing to do with the poor ones, and only see the good, very expensive ones.
4D chess lads...
after?
'kin hell.
I don't think that changes the answer...
Around 25,000 patients were discharged into care homes without being tested for coronavirus, an official report said.
Now, I don't know whether that's been added in since last night, but that's a more honest statement - better still would be to put it in the context of how many were tested (though 25,000 sounds like a big number).
Presumably the UK are capitulating on almost everything...
I think initially, the thought was we can blame Edinburgh and Cardiff for this, and perhaps no one will notice what has happened in England. As that ruse failed to gain traction, the thought wasperhaps we can distance the government by blaming the institutions and their staff instead. In the grand scheme, I am not sure how that works.
My own experience of care homes is that the well run ones (normally top end privately owned establishments) would probably have considered the implications and rejected hospital leavers. The more down market homes, privately owned but reliant on local authority money would have shovelled hospital leavers in on the whim of the hospitals and local authorities concerned. On arrival they would be "looked after" be underpaid, undertrained staff.
LAs are failing, hospital trusts are failing, care homes owners are failing, surely that reflects on government?
https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-care-homes-discharge/
Nobody eve said Mrs Wallace was any great shakes as governor; she was a figurehead who did what her husband told her.
One thing, however she did do. When she heard reports about poor conditions in state facilities for the mentally ill, she decided to take a look. What she saw shocked her profoundly. I may not know much or be able to do much, she said, but by God, she WAS the Governor, and if she was going to do ANYTHING, she was going to do something for for those people, something to improve their terrible living conditions. And she did.
Will be interesting when the record of Covid 2020 is written of by future observers, which elected leaders did the best they could. And which did not.
Well knock me down with a feather, who could have anticipated that.
An interesting turnaround from the PB Tories...
That’s what we don’t know - although “All” seems unlikely - and that reflected the advice at the time to only test symptomatic patients - in mid-April, when asymptomatic transmission was understood testing of all discharges was required. Additionally COVID symptoms can present differently in the very elderly which was not understood at the start - which is how Guernsey missed its Care Home outbreak.
As far as your last paragraoh is concerned it reflects on all the political class who fight every proposal for change no more so than Theresa May's dementia tax. Furthermore the government have called for a cross party consensus and only Corbyn refused to co-operate. Let us be positive and hope under Starmer the whole complex matter can be resolved expeditiously
But you forgot incompetent. He can't run a whelk stall.
What evidence have you got that the owners are minted or making a ridiculous profit?
As for it being Corbyn's fault, whereas I am normally happy to leave the ordure at his door, this time, I would have to say, the government are in charge to hell with Corbyn.
Methinks the biggest political impact in 2020, is fact that chief prosecutor who filed the re-newed cases against Epstein and Maxwell, and who was in charge of subsequent investigation, was fired a few weeks ago by - guess who?
I suspect much of the transmission in care homes was/is from staff, particularly those who are peripatetic, often agency workers, working on zero contract hours and, logically, in the poorer care homes. The failure here was in not testing staff, even more so than residents. And of course staff spread it within their communities as well, if C-19 positive.
I don't think there was any capacity to test staff on the scale necessary in the first couple of months of the crisis. When Hancock and the PM said they had thrown "a protective ring around care homes right from the start", this was clearly not true. Regardless of who is to blame, lack of testing of staff must have been a major factor in the spread.
https://www.theparliamentaryreview.co.uk/news/1-5-billion-a-year-of-care-home-fees-are-not-re-invested-into-the-sector-report-says
A privately-funded dossier also repeats allegations of a spying risk posed to the UK by the technology firm Huawei.
By Deborah Hayes"
https://news.sky.com/story/china-trying-to-influence-elite-figures-in-british-politics-dossier-claims-12022695