Coronavirus

[Gav 9148]

5 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Labour won inspite of the likes of Blunkett not because of him.  

You've got some strange political views TS.

From a staunch Labour city like Sheffield, served the labour party for over 30yrs and was instrumental in returning them back to government?

Really?

[den 7284]

The good law project move to the next stage. Government tried to price them out of the law case but judge didn’t allow it.

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces 12300]

59 minutes ago, Gav said:

You've got some strange political views TS.

From a staunch Labour city like Sheffield, served the labour party for over 30yrs and was instrumental in returning them back to government?

Really?

I've been a free lance socialist all my life, and I've never sold out.  It cost me lots in my working life but I don't regret a minute of it.  It's just that I don't equate the likes of Blunkett with Socialism. He served his self at the same time. Socialite more than Socialist. I've been to Parliament and seen how seductive it all is. He wasn't the first and he won't be the last to sell out.

Edited February 23 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Ewood Ace 4677]

1 hour ago, Gav said:

A very good paper at one time EA, has now completely lost the plot, it started in 2016 and they'll never recover. 

I never had a lot of time for it but I lost anytime that I had for it when it supported the austerity supporting Lib Dems. And then when Labour got a leader who was slightly left of centre in Corbyn they completely revealed their true colours with their constant smearing of him.

[jim mk2 8744]

The Guardian is a "Green" paper, so you'd think he'd like it. Green and a Tory, no wonder he's so muddled. 

I like the Guardian because if is a relatively "independent" paper; right wing views get an airing as well as the left. Its support for the Lib Dems in 2010, the party that put Cameron in No 10, and led to austerity and Brexit, was reprehensible though. 

Anyway, back to the government's corrupt mishandling of the pandemic and the latest world-leading death figures. 

[RoverDom 1867]

4 hours ago, Gav said:

With the vaccine roll out going so well, we have no need to change the current course set out by JVC, but here are some official figures that tell us who should be vaccinated, if we change course and target occupational groups:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55795608

Breaking that down by role, secondary school teachers appear to have a very slightly elevated risk at 39 deaths per 100,000 people in men and 21 per 100,000 in women.

Per 100,000 men aged 20-64, 31 died in the population as a whole compared with:

119 restaurant and catering staff per 100,000

110 care workers

106 metal-working machine operatives

101 taxi drivers

100 security guards

79 nurses

Per 100,000 women aged 20-64, 17 died in the population as a whole compared with:

47 care workers per 100,000

32 social workers

27 sales or retail assistants

25 nurses

22 cleaners

21 secondary education teaching professionals

Is that not going to be screwed slightly though. Timeframe looked at was 9 March to 28 December 2020. Theres been a fair bit of down time for teachers in that period between lockdowns and school holidays. Unlike say supermarkets which havent stopped. So other sectors have had more opportunity to catch it but that then cant be used to say that once schools go back to normal on 8th of March teachers are at a lower risk than anyone else. 

[RoverDom 1867]

3 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Did Hancock's mate produce the required PPE need? 

You would need to be inside to see how much it's happens

I didn't know it had been happening in the first place, has double / triple billing been widely reported? I criticise the public sector for a lot of things but they atleast have basic payment controls in place. 

[47er 8969]

8 hours ago, Gav said:

David Blunkett slamming the unions, not me and he's spot on too:

That is what makes the teaching unions’ decision to fight to block this return and to keep the classrooms closed for longer so inexplicable: it will cause untold potential damage to millions of young lives.

And it will not be the well-off, well-educated families who will lose out if we fail to act. Their children are often in well-funded schools offering something close to a full-time curriculum online. Preventing children from getting an education by refusing to return to the classroom will punish some of the most vulnerable children in the country and have a deeply damaging effect on social mobility. That is why the continued opposition of the teaching unions to the reopening of schools is both destructive and wrong.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9288825/A-devastating-assault-unions-fighting-return-classrooms-DAVID-BLUNKETT.html

Yes,I read that. You were in first though. so it is you slamming Unions as you always do. I don't agree with Plunkett anyway.

Unions represent their members and their members are telling them they're worried about a wholesale school return.

Rather than say "Plunkett agrees with me", why do you ignore the points I've made. How are they not valid?

[47er 8969]

2 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

The Guardian is a "Green" paper, so you'd think he'd like it. Green and a Tory, no wonder he's so muddled. 

He actually wrote "never voted Tory, never will"

I thought at the time that could have been quite clever use of words.The Tory Party in a sense ceased to exist from the mid-19th century and became the Conservative Party.

So strictly speaking he has never  voted Tory and never will! Same goes for me and all of us!

That's the only explanation that makes sense.

As for Green---laughable.

[47er 8969]

4 hours ago, Gav said:

A very good paper at one time EA, has now completely lost the plot, it started in 2016 and they'll never recover. 

 

 

Gross exaggeration 1 and factually incorrect 2.  You have a few bees in your bonnet and this is one of them.

Your wife is right!

 

[Gav 9148]

10 hours ago, 47er said:

Well, don't forget to come on and acknowledge your mistake when the infection rates rise.

 

15 minutes ago, 47er said:

Rather than say "Plunkett agrees with me", why do you ignore the points I've made. How are they not valid?

Above is the original point you made, it was a fabrication 47er, you made it up.

I hope that clears that up. 

[Gav 9148]

2 minutes ago, 47er said:

Gross exaggeration 1 and factually incorrect 2.  You have a few bees in your bonnet and this is one of them.

Your wife is right!

 

It was Ewood Ace calling out the lies on Covid by The Guardian highlighted by Chris Whitty only yesterday.

I was just agreeing with him. 

[47er 8969]

3 minutes ago, Gav said:

 

Above is the original point you made, it was a fabrication 47er, you made it up.

I hope that clears that up. 

Sorry, no idea what you're on about there.

[47er 8969]

1 minute ago, Gav said:

It was Ewood Ace calling out the lies on Covid by The Guardian highlighted by Chris Whitty only yesterday.

I was just agreeing with him. 

You said the paper " will never recover". Its not in any crisis to recover from that I'm aware. Its loyal readers aren't rattling on about 2016 and never were. You made it up.

[47er 8969]

19 minutes ago, 47er said:

He actually wrote "never voted Tory, never will"

I thought at the time that could have been quite clever use of words.The Tory Party in a sense ceased to exist from the mid-19th century and became the Conservative Party.

So strictly speaking he has never  voted Tory and never will! Same goes for me and all of us!

That's the only explanation that makes sense.

As for Green---laughable.

I take it you don't dispute what I'm saying here?

[Gav 9148]

3 minutes ago, 47er said:

You said the paper " will never recover". Its not in any crisis to recover from that I'm aware. Its loyal readers aren't rattling on about 2016 and never were. You made it up.

My views on the paper are well documented 47er, it was called out live on national TV yesterday for telling lies about Covid19 by the CMO.

I can add nothing more to be honest, its very clear.

 

 

[Gav 9148]

31 minutes ago, 47er said:

He actually wrote "never voted Tory, never will"

I thought at the time that could have been quite clever use of words.The Tory Party in a sense ceased to exist from the mid-19th century and became the Conservative Party.

So strictly speaking he has never  voted Tory and never will! Same goes for me and all of us!

That's the only explanation that makes sense.

As for Green---laughable.

 

11 minutes ago, 47er said:

I take it you don't dispute what I'm saying here?

What I do take is this a Covid19 thread, its has moved into other areas today, I'm partly responsible.

But frankly, I find the fact you and Jim are obsessing with my voting record a bit strange, its just weird, you're both going beyond the lines of banter and discussion on a messageboard.

You both need to get another hobby with the greatest of respect. 

 

Edited February 23 by Gav

[47er 8969]

27 minutes ago, Gav said:

 

What I do take is this a Covid19 thread, its has moved into other areas today, I'm partly responsible.

But frankly, I find the fact you and Jim are obsessing with my voting record a bit strange, its just weird, you're both going beyond the lines of banter and discussion on a messageboard.

You both need to get another hobby with the greatest of respect. 

 

And nobody reading this could possibly dispute that you are deflecting from the points I've put to you. As usual.

No need to have any prolonged discussion on here-- just own up!

 

[chaddyrovers 6067]

3 hours ago, RoverDom said:

I didn't know it had been happening in the first place, has double / triple billing been widely reported? I criticise the public sector for a lot of things but they atleast have basic payment controls in place. 

I dont know if it happens in this case of buying of PPE. 

I was given an example of corruption. 

Giving a contract to someone you know isnt curruption if he can supply the contract standard of PPE. 

6 hours ago, Ewood Ace said:

Hard to believe a Guardian exclusive when just yesterday they were called out for lying by Chris Whitty. 

Shocking by that Newspaper. Writing an article even after he denied the story. Should held the heads in shame really. 

[Silas 1763]

4 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

..... and the latest world-leading death figures. 

   =

1 hour ago, 47er said:

Gross exaggeration 1 and factually incorrect 2. 

 

 

 

P.S. Please keep the "parties" and "winged" newspapers in the Politics thread, I implore you.

The coronavirus thread is depressing enough without injecting greater British politics into the sewer fatberg. 

[47er 8969]

Fair comment. Gav got stuck into the Guardian on the Coronavirus page and I responded on the Coronavirus page.

These things get intertwined from time to time.

[RoverDom 1867]

8 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Giving a contract to someone you know isnt curruption if he can supply the contract standard of PPE. 

Ok what you've said isnt technically wrong but ignores a huge part of the issue.

1. Giving someone a contract that you know, isnt corruption (I have caveats) 

2. Giving someone a contract because you know them is corruption. Especially when that person has no prior experience of producing medical grade equipment. Awarding a contract like that is at best opportunism and at worst potentially dangerous. 

The UK public sector has a whole set of procurement rules regulations designed entirely to stop people being awarded contracts just because they're mates. 

Granted you dont want to go through a full procurement process mid pandemic so there are ways to short cut these rules. There were stories of PPE manufacturers in the UK ready to go and offering to help who were ignored whilst companies with no prior experience of producing anything remotely related to what we needed got lucrative contracts. A non corrupt government would have shortcutted procurement rules to award the PPE manufacturers a contract, a corrupt government would award a contract to Ayanda capital or a pest control company. 

Had hancocks mate been the a proven producer of PPE, I dont think many reasonable people would have an issue with him getting a contract, but when it's his landlord with no record who is now being probed by the regulator....

Edited February 24 by RoverDom

[chaddyrovers 6067]

27 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Ok what you've said isnt technically wrong but ignores a huge part of the issue.

1. Giving someone a contract that you know, isnt corruption (I have caveats) 

2. Giving someone a contract because you know them is corruption. Especially when that person has no prior experience of producing medical grade equipment. Awarding a contract like that is at best opportunism and at worst potentially dangerous. 

The UK public sector has a whole set of procurement rules regulations designed entirely to stop people being awarded contracts just because they're mates. 

Granted you dont want to go through a full procurement process mid pandemic so there are ways to short cut these rules. There were stories of PPE manufacturers in the UK ready to go and offering to help who were ignored whilst companies with no prior experience of producing anything remotely related to what we needed got lucrative contracts. A non corrupt government would have shortcutted procurement rules to award the PPE manufacturers a contract, a corrupt government would award a contract to Ayanda capital or a pest control company. 

Had hancocks mate been the a proven producer of PPE, I dont think many reasonable people would have an issue with him getting a contract, but when it's his landlord with no record who is now being probed by the regulator....

I dont know the full background of Hancock's friend bio or what line of business at all.

I can understand your point of award a contract non experience PPE companies and someone agree. You would to award contracts to companies with experience 1st..but some people probably started a new company for PPE then also cos it product needed..

I can understand using a friend who promise you he can deliver the product and on cost aswell. Cos there is element of trust there.. Similar to you using a friend to do plumber work for you cos he is plumber by trade. 

We need PPE asap and we didn't have time for procurement process. Get PPE to the front line on time and good quality product is all that mattered to me. Protecting the NHS was the target

[47er 8969]

34 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

I dont know the full background of Hancock's friend bio or what line of business at all.

I can understand your point of award a contract non experience PPE companies and someone agree. You would to award contracts to companies with experience 1st..but some people probably started a new company for PPE then also cos it product needed..

I can understand using a friend who promise you he can deliver the product and on cost aswell. Cos there is element of trust there.. Similar to you using a friend to do plumber work for you cos he is plumber by trade. 

We need PPE asap and we didn't have time for procurement process. Get PPE to the front line on time and good quality product is all that mattered to me. Protecting the NHS was the target

Totally ignoring the point that the government is refusing to publish the details of these deals months after they were agreed. If its all above-board what have they got to worry about?

If the important thing was to get the equipment out as soon as possible why do they refuse to release the information we are entitled to now that part is over?

Its tax-payers money not their own. This is a cover-up.

 

[RoverDom 1867]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

I can understand using a friend who promise you he can deliver the product and on cost aswell. Cos there is element of trust there.. Similar to you using a friend to do plumber work for you cos he is plumber by trade. 

The UK government isn't the same as me doing some work on a house and I'll get my mate in who's an electrician cos I know he'll do a good job. It's just not comparable, the government and UK civil service will have sizeable supply chain they will know who the big movers are in medical supply chains it's not like they're starting from scratch and need to ask a mate. 

But let's say they are comparable some of the contracts awarded are like me needing an extension built and instead of me getting a builder in, I'll ask my best mate who is a data analyst to do it. 

 

You've got think that if Hancock was in the private sector and there was an element profit risk, he wouldnt dish out contracts to his mates, he'd give contracts to the best contractor. Because the public sector is for all intents and purposes a black hole of money with no worries about making a profit and no real drama if there is financial loss, people think they can get away with skimming off the top. It's why these procurement rules are in place and we should uphold and respect them. Otherwise they're taking money straight out of your pay cheque for their mates.