The government has made/is making a right bloody mess of all this. | Vital Football

The government has made/is making a right bloody mess of all this.

Boring
same shit every day all over the world people need ppe not just this place It’s a new virus that no one knows any thing about cures or how to stop it every one should be sticking together doing there bit Like care homes. They are quite happy to charge up to a grand a week and pay shit wages should have add some PPE. In there stocks
 
walgarthjohn said:
Boring
same shit every day all over the world people need ppe not just this place It’s a new virus that no one knows any thing about cures or how to stop it every one should be sticking together doing there bit Like care homes. They are quite happy to charge up to a grand a week and pay shit wages should have add some PPE. In there stocks
Click to expand...

Oi John ............ only whinging about the government allowed on this thread. If you want to say how well they're doing, and how wonderful the country think they all are, keep it to the other thread.

We don't want arguments.

;)
 
And that proves that know one as any idea how to stop it yet ..We can only listen to the medical experts that tell they are the ones
 
I've put this in the moaning thread ...... but only as a response to hindley to show him that twitter isn't all nobheads and gobshites.

This isn't The Grauniad. This is The Sunday Times. This isn't a bunch of whinging lefties. This is Murdoch. This is Conservative home ground.

He didn't want the job. He just wanted the title. He can't be arsed doing the work.

I doubt he'll go back to the job .............. "retired hurt".

https://twitter.com/x/status/1251563504118771712
 
It's the guardian Moonay (when the spellchecker is turned on) 😉
And he'll be back don't worry 😁
 
Hampton said:
It's the guardian Moonay (when the spellchecker is turned on) 😉
And he'll be back don't worry 😁
Click to expand...

This'll ensure I keep that condescension trophy for a few weeks yet ........ "Grauniad" was a nickname given to the paper ( I think by Private Eye) because of it's habit of making spelling mistakes.

Johnson? Not sure. Did you see Gove on Marr? He's starting to make his move. Feather his pitch. I bet he's wasping that Raab is Deputy PM. Positioning. That's what it's all about. It;s like watching a live version of The Thick of it !
 
Hampton said:
Little spare time reading as rebuttal to the FT reporting heralded on here yesterday.
If the govt wasn't certain of it's ground it would not be responding in this way !
Seems the FT is following the fake news precedent set by the BBC here 🤔
Click to expand...
I shall have a read of that ............. should be interesting ........ I agree that on the surface of it, for the government to povide such a detailed response isn't commonplace, so it must have touched a nerve.

As Arnie said ............... I'll be back !
;)
 
Have you read it Hampton? as rebuttals go, I'll grant you that it's significantly better than "slightly off beam", but it doesn't exactly rip the article apart.

Much of it is around nuance, word pedantry and context.......... much like a discussion between me & MiW. ;)

In fact, half of the responses don't actually explicitly deny the claims in the report .... they merely offer a different context......or they deny using different words.

Just two examples:
1. Claim:
“They were at pains to stress, this needs to be simple designs - no ICU ventilators - and we’ve got to get them through basic regulatory approval,” said one person who was on the Prime Minister’s call with business leaders on 16 March.

Response:
This is simply incorrect. No minister or official on the call on 16 March said that designs needed to be simple, nor that they were not looking for ICU ventilators.

..........OK, so maybe no minister or official said that, but maybe someone from MHRA did ....... or the RCN ...... or, well, you get the idea. They don't say "it was not said", not what they claim was actually said.

2. Claim:
The first formal specification published by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on March 20, [specified] the “intended purpose” of the device was for ‘short-term stabilisation for a few hours’ extendable to 24 hours “in extremis”.

Response:
This quote is misleading and misses key qualifications. As NHS England’s Chief Commercial Officer, Emily Lawson, specified on the Prime Minister’s call with business leaders on 16 March, the devices will ‘need to be able to operate 24/7’.

.........The response doesn't actually deny that the 24/7 requirement was only in extremis. ............... and the statement on the 16th is surely superseded by the actual spec FFS! I reckon the response is a damn sight more misleading than the claim !

Actually, by the end, I was finding the responses quite disingenuous. More and more they were referring to the detail of what was (reportedly) said on a call on 16th March rather than what was on the specs.

Sorry Hampton ...................... It may be overstated, overstretched or exaggerated news, but it doesn't really appear to be fake.
 
moonay said:
Have you read it Hampton? as rebuttals go, I'll grant you that it's significantly better than "slightly off beam", but it doesn't exactly rip the article apart.

Much of it is around nuance, word pedantry and context.......... much like a discussion between me & MiW. ;)

In fact, half of the responses don't actually explicitly deny the claims in the report .... they merely offer a different context......or they deny using different words.

Just two examples:
1. Claim:
“They were at pains to stress, this needs to be simple designs - no ICU ventilators - and we’ve got to get them through basic regulatory approval,” said one person who was on the Prime Minister’s call with business leaders on 16 March.

Response:
This is simply incorrect. No minister or official on the call on 16 March said that designs needed to be simple, nor that they were not looking for ICU ventilators.

..........OK, so maybe no minister or official said that, but maybe someone from MHRA did ....... or the RCN ...... or, well, you get the idea. They don't say "it was not said", not what they claim was actually said.

2. Claim:
The first formal specification published by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on March 20, [specified] the “intended purpose” of the device was for ‘short-term stabilisation for a few hours’ extendable to 24 hours “in extremis”.

Response:
This quote is misleading and misses key qualifications. As NHS England’s Chief Commercial Officer, Emily Lawson, specified on the Prime Minister’s call with business leaders on 16 March, the devices will ‘need to be able to operate 24/7’.

.........The response doesn't actually deny that the 24/7 requirement was only in extremis. ............... and the statement on the 16th is surely superseded by the actual spec FFS! I reckon the response is a damn sight more misleading than the claim !

Actually, by the end, I was finding the responses quite disingenuous. More and more they were referring to the detail of what was (reportedly) said on a call on 16th March rather than what was on the specs.

Sorry Hampton ...................... It may be overstated, overstretched or exaggerated news, but it doesn't really appear to be fake.
Click to expand...
Guess thats your interpretation and fair enough.
I will stand by the point that if the reporting was accurate the govt would have said nowt.
 
Hampton said:
Guess thats your interpretation and fair enough.
I will stand by the point that if the reporting was accurate the govt would have said nowt.
Click to expand...

I think they're just touchy. Understandably so. For me, it's nowhere near the point where it demands this kind of attention. Most things seemed truthful ...... but looked at through a negative rather than a positive lens. Is a cup half full or half empty? Neither is fake news.

Other points were, as I said more nuanced.

Much ado about nothing really ................. but (to a glass half empty person in this context) it seems like there are one or two guilty consciences within the government/civil service structure.
 
Its a funny old world. When I worked for Government in the South of England in the early eighties my colleague (we were site engineers) told me that he was previously in charge of an army storage site, were they were undertaking an energy conservation programme, for the fuel bill for this site was sky high. To cut a long story short one of the warehouse buildings which was heated 24 hours a day 7 days a week stored thousands of horseshoes and gun barrels suitable for major 1st world war fighting ships. Dreadnoughts no less and horses spares for service WW1.
I had to smile when a government spokesman pointed out we did no have any spare ventilators or PPE to meet this pandemic. Just seems so funny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.