UK Politics

[Signalcalc]

Another timebomb...

Met Police take 1,000 names off gangs list after racism claim

Nearly a thousand young people have been removed from Scotland Yard’s gangs record after claims of discrimination and data breaches, prompting fears of a resurgence in violence.The Metropolitan Police said that the intelligence database, which it uses to identify and assess gangs across London, is a

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Pat494]

The Politically Correct Police are so undermanned and short of spirit they can't tackle crime anymore in case the criminals and their friends start complaining.
In Glasgow the gangs are fighting each other for supremacy.
Feeble or what !

 

[counter_violent]

The Politically Correct Police are so undermanned and short of spirit they can't tackle crime anymore in case the criminals and their friends start complaining.
In Glasgow the gangs are fighting each other for supremacy.
Feeble or what !

You can blame elf n safety for a lot of it.

Last thing you do is put yourself at risk in order to make a difference.

Gone are the days when a drowning child would be rescued from the canal.

 

[Signalcalc]

This was in 2015, in 2018 the Scotttrust became a corporate entity run by the Rothschilds.

HSBC and the sham of Guardian’s Scott Trust

When I and others accuse the British media of systematic and consistent bias in favour of corporate power, and point out that the media is structurally part of that system of corporate power, we typically receive emails from readers arguing that not all parts of the media are subject to such...

www.jonathan-cook.net

 

[MasterOfCoin]

UK Gov's chief cock invited to apologize over abandoning masses of vulnerable elderly in care homes to an early death ....
and declines, citing the invitation to be 'unreasonable'.

Expect advance vetting of all questions at future briefings.

😷

 

[tomorton]

UK Gov's chief cock invited to apologize over abandoning masses of vulnerable elderly in care homes to an early death ....
and declines, citing the invitation to be 'unreasonable'.

Expect advance vetting of all questions at future briefings.

😷

The elderly with underlying health issues living in institutions, sometimes in shared rooms, often without the best qualified nursing staff and with minimal equipment, were always going to be most at risk from an airborne viral flu-like disease.

Its hard to see plainly how the government could have reversed that tendency. Has any other government done that successfully?

 

[MasterOfCoin]

Its hard to see plainly how the government could have reversed that tendency. Has any other government done that successfully?

Then perhaps you could have watched the briefing for the next awkward question, lol.
... being on 'why were unrestricted social visits allowed to continue to such vulnerable people, whilst draconian lockdown measures were mandated for robustly healthy people'

😷

 

[barjon]

A vicar in USA has died after drinking disinfectant. Trump has been arrested for bleach of the priest.

 

[tomorton]

Then perhaps you could have watched the briefing for the next awkward question, lol.
... being on 'why were unrestricted social visits allowed to continue to such vulnerable people, whilst draconian lockdown measures were mandated for robustly healthy people'

😷

What was the answer?

 

[MasterOfCoin]

What was the answer?

It was answered that 'first guidance to care homes was in February and that "we have been working with them throughout".

and on continued unfettered visiting spreading infection to the most vulnerable, that 'the government was following the scientific advice and ministers had to bear in mind the positive impact that having loved ones visit had on residents '


From which one might conclude that perhaps vigorous studies had shown how a positive happy attitude or feelings of well-being and contentment were important factors in ensuring immunity to the virus, although no actual evidence was cited.

😷

 

[tomorton]

It was answered that 'first guidance to care homes was in February and that "we have been working with them throughout".

and on continued unfettered visiting spreading infection to the most vulnerable, that 'the government was following the scientific advice and ministers had to bear in mind the positive impact that having loved ones visit had on residents '


From which one might conclude that perhaps vigorous studies had shown how a positive happy attitude or feelings of well-being and contentment were important factors in ensuring immunity to the virus, although no actual evidence was cited.

😷

So when was it that visits to the vulnerable were allowed but the healthy were locked down? I don't get the question, since the people doing the visiting would be the healthy: if we are all "draconianly" locked down, who would be the visitors to the vulnerable?

 

[MasterOfCoin]

I don't get the question, since the people doing the visiting would be the healthy: if we are all "draconianly" locked down, who would be the visitors to the vulnerable?

Perhaps what the questioners were getting at was as to why, the Government, fully aware since February, allowed continued visiting to the most vulnerable group-the elderly with underlying health issues living in institutions, sometimes in shared rooms, often without the best qualified nursing staff and with minimal equipment on site, until the third week of March.

But that's speculation, and you may speculate on other reasons behind the questions.

They were, however, asked, and I've noted the skilled and suitably evasive responses that were given.

But not to worry, the Government didn't 'get' the question either, or deliberately chose not to get it.

😷

 

[tomorton]

It looks like advice issued in February for everyone was that if someone had contact with a person with flu-like symptoms in a residential setting including a care home, they should self-isolate for 14 days. The sufferer should self-isolate for 7 days.

The lockdown did not start until March and applied to both domestic and institutional residential settings.

Where are the signs that care homes were left outside the self-isolation advice issued or outside the lockdown instructions?

 

[MasterOfCoin]

Where are the signs that care homes were left outside the self-isolation advice issued or outside the lockdown instructions?

Again, what the questioners seem to be getting at, is why, the Government, knowing what it did in February, did nothing to protect the most vulnerable in society until March, when it acted to protect everybody, vulnerable or not.

😷

 

[tomorton]

Again, what the questioners seem to be getting at, is why, the Government, knowing what it did in February, did nothing to protect the most vulnerable in society until March, when it acted to protect everybody, vulnerable or not.

😷

They were trying to protect them by getting the sick, the sicks' contacts and the returners from northern Italy to go into self-isolation.

I strongly suspect that my own virus infection came through someone I'm close with who was in workplace contact with a person who returned from northern Italy at this time with new flu-like symptoms who chose not to self-isolate until she as told by her manager to go home and stay there.

In any case, all the vulnerable people in the country were advised why they were vulnerable

The government did not do nothing. They just did not do something which nobody at the time was asking them to do.

But its hard to explain why sick people and their contacts and the vulnerable did not do enough until the lockdown became law. I guess they were just complacent.

 

[MasterOfCoin]

I strongly suspect that my own virus infection came through someone I'm close with who was in workplace contact with a person who returned from northern Italy at this time with new flu-like symptoms who chose not to self-isolate until she as told by her manager to go home and stay there.

Indeed.

History tells us that one of the keys things to do in a pandemic is close the damn gates.

Yet our Government not only left the gates wide open, but has continued to do so, and quite astoundingly, frankly, whilst effectively putting it's entire population under a form of house arrest, has allowed floods of arrivals into the country with no checks whatsoever in place so as to prevent any infected persons from entering. None, not even a simple temperature scan.

'come along, do move along, there's good chaps, now if you'd just be good enough to isolate yourself for a week or two where-ever you intend to stay, that'd be just splendid'

Not at all surprised that you got infected as a result.

😷

 

[Signalcalc]

Indeed.

History tells us that one of the keys things to do in a pandemic is close the damn gates.

Yet our Government not only left the gates wide open, but has continued to do so, and quite astoundingly, frankly, whilst effectively putting it's entire population under a form of house arrest, has allowed floods of arrivals into the country with no checks whatsoever in place so as to prevent any infected persons from entering. None, not even a simple temperature scan.

'come along, do move along, there's good chaps, now if you'd just be good enough to isolate yourself for a week or two where-ever you intend to stay, that'd be just splendid'

Not at all surprised that you got infected as a result.

😷

Remember the beginning of the pandemic when UKGov was quarantining UK nationals as they were being brought back from the cruise ships?

The drivers of the coaches were not wearing PPE when the passengers were!

That was a massive red flag (along with others) that UKGov knew that Covid was not as deadly as was being made out at the time (and still is). That was either negligence or they knew something they weren't telling us about Covid19.

 

[Signalcalc]

They were trying to protect them by getting the sick, the sicks' contacts and the returners from northern Italy to go into self-isolation.

I strongly suspect that my own virus infection came through someone I'm close with who was in workplace contact with a person who returned from northern Italy at this time with new flu-like symptoms who chose not to self-isolate until she as told by her manager to go home and stay there.

In any case, all the vulnerable people in the country were advised why they were vulnerable

The government did not do nothing. They just did not do something which nobody at the time was asking them to do.

But its hard to explain why sick people and their contacts and the vulnerable did not do enough until the lockdown became law. I guess they were just complacent.

Have you had the antibody test Tomo? Do you know for certain that you had Covid19?

 

[tomorton]

Indeed.

History tells us that one of the keys things to do in a pandemic is close the damn gates.

Yet our Government not only left the gates wide open, but has continued to do so, and quite astoundingly, frankly, whilst effectively putting it's entire population under a form of house arrest, has allowed floods of arrivals into the country with no checks whatsoever in place so as to prevent any infected persons from entering. None, not even a simple temperature scan.

'come along, do move along, there's good chaps, now if you'd just be good enough to isolate yourself for a week or two where-ever you intend to stay, that'd be just splendid'

Not at all surprised that you got infected as a result.

😷

I got infected because a lockdown was not in place during February. With a 14-day incubation period I might have picked this up as early as the 16th Feb. At that point, no country in Europe had a national lockdown. Even Italy's regions and cities local lockdowns did not start until the 21st.

As for the incoming 15,000 people per day, it could be held that these are essential journeys for people to return home, or for people to obtain medical treatment once home, or for people to exit regions of the world with a greater virus outbreak and lower quality healthcare. In any case, 15,000 additional people on top of the UK's 63 million is a daily increase in total and therefore of risk of only 0.02%. It really seems like the definition of either autocracy or health-and-safety-gone-mad to lock people up for a 0.02% increase in national risk.

 

[Signalcalc]

Prime example of BBC fakery.