The Clown Circus

Of course he had to go, just because via the vaccination program Britain has had the second-best Covid response in the world besides Israel doesn't justify stripping away civil liberties from people months after the emergency ended, while ignoring those rules himself.

One interesting thing to note with Javid's appointment is just how many of the current Cabinet now are children of immigrants. The vaccine minister Zahawi is himself an immigrant, while the Treasury, Home Office, FCDO and Business are all headed by the children of immigrants. The PM himself was born overseas and is the grandchild of an immigrant.

At the least though thanks to this scandal it should be the final nail through the heart of the Cult of Lockdown supporters. Those cultists who have continued to support lockdowns months after excess deaths were eliminated which I've been railing against should with Hancock gone hopefully find little succour as people decide enough is enough and these cultists need to be told where to stick it if they wish to strip away our civil liberties any longer.

The NHS exists to protect the public, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The NHS exists to protect the public, not the other way around.

---

Eurgh. This is a silly phrase for silly people who listen to Talk Radio and are more upset by lockdown being extended by 4 weeks than the cataclysmic incompetence and moral vacuum that lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Never listened to TalkRadio but the Lockdown being extended months past the point excess deaths stopped is absolutely the worst and most illiberal mistake of this entire pandemic by far. Taking away civil liberties should only ever be the last resort and we haven't been at that last resort for months.

There's also fates worse than just death. 600,000 people die per year on average, close to a million people will have died from natural causes during lockdown without being able to see their loved ones. How many will have seen dementia worsen or get dementia and be lost without dying over the same period? People have lost the last year of their lives without their family, people who will never get that time back with their families and friends. Those in care homes were double-vaccinated many months ago but have been locked away for over a year without seeing their loved ones - and keep in mind that the median life expectancy of someone going into a care home is less than a year. Even now care homes are quite like prisons where people are dying with only the staff to hold their hands not their families. These are just healthcare issues without considering the economic consequences.

We have lost all perspective over Covid and for what? To artificially perhaps "save" a few thousand lives while stripping away tens of millions of people's civil liberties.

In hindsight, the Swedes called this right and we called this wrong. Locking down during the peaks was the right thing to do, but in hindsight what we see across the world is that in nations without draconian restrictions people lockdown voluntarily during the peaks as they get scared, the more vulnerable lock themselves down harder, but then people unlock as they feel safe to do so - and instead we're keeping double-vaccinated people locked away from families when the virus isn't killing anyone significant. It is a disgrace.

Incidentally its worth thinking that the NHS via NICE typically measures the Potential Years of Life Lost in measuring health impacts of potential treatments. If a potential treatment like aducan'tumab or others can't be shown to save potential years of life then it won't be authorised. Lockdown now is every bit as much a disgrace as the FDA's response to aducan'tumab.

Quantitatively we've lost 1.25 years in lockdown so far for 67 million people. 67 million * 1.25 = 84 million years of life lost.
We have excess deaths of less than 120k. Supposedly the average years lost on average for them is 10 (though that's a mistake and its considerably lower than that) = 1.2 million years of life lost.

Even if you only look since March when excess deaths dropped to below zero, when the vulnerable were all vaccinated by then, we've lost more years of life since March than we have from the pandemic. EDIT: Indeed we've lost more lives since March than we have excess deaths since the pandemic began.

Twitter Link

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E44Zew3W...png&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E46x8YgW...jpg&name=large

Absolutely disgusting policy whose only purpose is to appease and sustain xenophobia for electoral benefit. These detention centers tend to be plagued by abuse and suffering. The UK struggles to regulate (or, rather, strives to prevent regulation of) domestic detention centers; this govt. will undoubtedly fail the asylum seekers it sends off to any offshore detention centers, and probably do so far more cruelly than eg. the Australian govt. has. Nothing but contempt for these shit-eaters and the worthless, cowardly, racist cretins who defend them.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-the-oppressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E46x8YgW...jpg&name=large

Absolutely disgusting policy whose only purpose is to appease and sustain xenophobia for electoral benefit. These detention centers tend to be plagued by abuse and suffering. The UK struggles to regulate (or, rather, strives to prevent regulation of) domestic detention centers; this govt. will undoubtedly fail the asylum seekers it sends off to any offshore detention centers, and probably do so far more cruelly than eg. the Australian govt. has. Nothing but contempt for these shit-eaters and the worthless, cowardly, racist cretins who defend them.

---

Interesting that you once again have a hard-on for criticising the UK for doing exploratory talks with Denmark about what the Danes are doing, which has been done successfully by Australia and saved potentially thousands of lives when the Aussies did it.

I must have missed your criticism of the Danes when they announced it, which is amusing as they are your compatriots in the EU and a fellow Scandinavian country, so perhaps you could share your thoughts you shared of when the Danes agreed to do this?

Or are you just a racist, xenophobic shitbag who hates the UK and not the proposal to stop people trafficking and save lives?

Also did you miss the tragic news about the recent finding of bodies from people who have yet again died attempting this incredibly dangerous journey from the EU to the UK? What about the EU makes it such a third world shithole that people need to die fleeing it? Stopping these journeys will save lives, why do you find saving lives problematic?

Twitter Link

Hancock showing up this worthless chancer as a parting gift was *chefs kiss*

Are you new to politics or just naive?

The PM being said to have confidence in a Minister, days before he gets sacked "resigns" is old as time.

Plenty of Malcolm Tucker and other jokes about it long before Boris became PM.

Its just like in football a club's Board giving the Manager a "Vote of Confidence".

It's nothing like that. Johnson should have sacked Hancock and you know it.

Absolutely and I called for him to be sacked immediately as soon as the story broke and was glad he did get the sack. It took him ~24 hours to do so and appoint a worthy successor which is pretty much lightning fast in the history of Cabinet Secretary "resignations".

What evidence do you have that Johnson sacked Hancock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Incidentally its worth thinking that the NHS via NICE typically measures the Potential Years of Life Lost in measuring health impacts of potential treatments. If a potential treatment like aducan'tumab or others can't be shown to save potential years of life then it won't be authorised. Lockdown now is every bit as much a disgrace as the FDA's response to aducan'tumab.

Quantitatively we've lost 1.25 years in lockdown so far for 67 million people. 67 million * 1.25 = 84 million years of life lost.
We have excess deaths of less than 120k. Supposedly the average years lost on average for them is 10 (though that's a mistake and its considerably lower than that) = 1.2 million years of life lost.

Even if you only look since March when excess deaths dropped to below zero, when the vulnerable were all vaccinated by then, we've lost more years of life since March than we have from the pandemic. EDIT: Indeed we've lost more lives since March than we have excess deaths since the pandemic began.

---

This has been knocking around my head for a few days. Can't quite tell if this is meant tongue in cheek. I hope it is. We haven't died during the lockdown, you haven't spent a year unconscious. And If anything, from my perspective, things have improved in a lot of other ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serapis

This has been knocking around my head for a few days. Can't quite tell if this is meant tongue in cheek. I hope it is. We haven't died during the lockdown, you haven't spent a year unconscious. And If anything, from my perspective, things have improved in a lot of other ways.

---

I used to lose 5-8 hours of life every day, so you might say my daughter has been a real lifesaver

I don't consider my life to be lost, at all, during lockdown. True, I'm a fairly unique circumstance, but it meant I spent more time with my children and helped them with their education. I'm sure for some people it was horrific, but to assume we all subscribe to the same version of "life" is a bit a lazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gogobongopop

What evidence do you have that Johnson sacked Hancock?

---

What evidence do you have that he didn't? For reasons of politeness in politics a sacking is almost always called a "resignation".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serapis

This has been knocking around my head for a few days. Can't quite tell if this is meant tongue in cheek. I hope it is. We haven't died during the lockdown, you haven't spent a year unconscious. And If anything, from my perspective, things have improved in a lot of other ways.

---

You and I haven't died, that's not true for everyone. About a million people in the UK alone from non-Covid reasons have done. Including very sadly one of our own community on this site recently passed away.

My wife works in a care home. She loves her job but has felt horrid for most of this year having to explain to residents with dementia again and again why they can't see their families and loved ones. Explaining to families that no they can't come see their loved ones. She's held the hands of dozens of people who've died in the past year without having seen their family in their final months.

I'm fortunate not to have lost any of my grandparents, my wife has lost all of hers, and since I returned to the UK in 2000 I have always ensured to go see them very regularly knowing increasingly in recent years that they wouldn't be around forever. The week it became legal to visit them again we did so, but one of my nans had a fall a few weeks earlier (after being double-vaccinated) and came home from hospital a shadow of herself. First time I saw her after lockdown was lifted was utterly heartbreaking and I couldn't hold back the tears - she's now bedbound and barely able to make eyecontact and simply isn't there anymore. Something happened due to the fall or while in hospital and she's not the same person anymore. My granddad is distraught and heartbroken, he's been by himself taking care of her. My parents were seeing them as their support bubble but we legally couldn't. My nan loved my girls but now my kids get upset and scared seeing her as they don't understand. She's alive but she's not herself anymore and I'm trying to come to terms with the fact that my nan I knew just isn't there anymore. :cry:

Has all this been worth it? Maybe during the peak yes, my grandparents were quite reasonably voluntarily shielding during the peak until they got vaccinated, but now? No, absolutely not. Maybe some people will be delighted with the changes to their own lives and losing the commute to work etc, but this time lost was precious and will never be gained back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

What evidence do you have that he didn't? For reasons of politeness in politics a sacking is almost always called a "resignation".

---

Let's start here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57641097

And the fact that Johnson said he stood by Hancock and considered the matter closed on Friday.

And when asked why he didn't sack him, he said "I read the story on Friday and by Saturday we had a new health secretary."

All the evidence points towards Johnson wanting to keep Hancock on. Hancock resigned when it became crystal clear just how little support he had from Tory MPs and, of course, the public.

Is this your first day following politics?

The PM saying they stand by their team is the first response to virtually any scandal ever, until the data about what's happened comes out and the response from public and MPs is heard. That's always what happens.

Wanting to keep your team on should be the default, if it isn't then why is he part of your team in the first place. But then when everything comes out and its clear an immediate apology isn't sufficient, to get a "resignation" within 24 hours is a pretty fast sacking. If Boris still wanted to keep Hancock on he could have rejected his "resignation" on the Saturday but he didn't.

Accepting a resignation is not the same as sacking. He said he considered the matter closed on Friday, which doesn't allow time to consider the matter or the public response. Johnson did his usual thing of trying to shut a scandal down and hoping it would go away.

I can understand your point if it were just about the affair. That I get. I understand that you'd want to give it a bit of time to measure the public response and how things could be played. But this wasn't about the affair. This a blatant "fuck you" to the entire country that deserved a sacking the second the dates were known, which they were right away.

"Accepting a resigntation" absolutely is the same thing as sacking politically. Plus I think you're naive if you think saying the case is closed means the case is closed.

Trying to shut down a scandal at first is the default first reaction by everyone. Its not a Boris thing, May, Cameron, Brown and Blair would all have done the same. I can't think of any scandal that saw a quicker sacking than this one.

Incidentally the initial media reporting on this majored more on the affair element than the hypocrisy element. There were 'commentators' saying how could Boris of all people sack someone for having an affair. What was clear before long though was that the breaking the rules bit was what cut through, not the affair and he was entirely rightly out on his ear within 24 hours.

I understand the political nuance of sackings and resignations. If I'm correct, the usual procedure is for the naughty boy or girl to be summoned to No.10. The PM will tell them how dissappinted they are then give them an opportunity to resign, instead of being sacked.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that didn't happen here. Johnson stood by Hancock until Hancock published the letter and creepy video on Twitter.

I think you're being naive if you think Johnson did anything else but sit on the side lines and hope it all went away.

The summoning normally happens days after the scandal broke, about a week to ten days was the rule of thumb under Blair - if the scandal hasn't blown over a week later its time to think about axeing the minister. Of course that was pre-pandemic when things were done more face-to-face.

That creepy video had all the authenticity of a hostage video.

You don't think he was told to do that? You think he made that hostage video unilaterally and sent it out without a conversation with the PM first?

No I don't.

I'd forgotten about this:

Twitter Link

The wheels grind slowly

Twitter Link

I .... uhm ...

:bulb:

After shutting down the pub, he decided to try his hand at (bad, racist, stupid) poetry:

Twitter Link

wow, the absolute state of this state

Twitter Link

Mings wasn't accusing the she-witch of stoking racism, but stoking the fire on the so-called controversy of taking a knee.

Which she did.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6Lm8fIW...jpg&name=small

It's like they're TRYING to come out as racists and racism-enablers :noob: I like this team. Looking forward to seeing these players clown puffed-up English racists for many more years

I think they have a real problem on their hands here. May this be the beginning of the end of Johnson and his scumbag cabinet.

It would be nice if you could elect a government that isn't hellbent on making things more difficult.

Led by donkeys

Twitter Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I wonder if Cummings will continue dropping screen dumps of WhatsApp messages etc and attacking Johnson's government, or if the purpose of this entire circus was really just to get Matt Hancock fired. If so, I have to grudgingly admire how petty that is.

---

Update: it's the first one

Twitter Link

Commons criminals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Update: it's the first one

---

Did he have anything interesting to say during the interview?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Did he have anything interesting to say during the interview?

---

Not really. More tattle about Johnson being a callous dipshit and resisting lock-downs, the government being completely dysfunctional behind the scenes, factional struggles, inappropriate influence etc. Nothing that he hasn't said before or wasn't immediately apparent to anyone paying attention to current affairs past few years.

A summery is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57882892

Someone's hero is not having a good summer:

Twitter Link

Deputy speaker character archetype fulfillment:

Twitter Link

Sigh.

Twitter Link