(44) Reads like bollocks from Cummings although he's been on the mark elsewhere.Here is his full document if anyone is interested:
As per my previous post, I am faced when reading it with the spectacle of totally disagreeing with one paragraph, only to find myself agreeing with some sentiments in the very next one, eg:
View attachment 398123
Sort of, but my point would still have rendered that largely irrelevant - the entire plan built into the system means they would not have prepared to act in that way at that time.Isn't point 44 about Brexit really about the fact that messing about with its implementation was taking up all the Cabinet headspace and energy and they seemed incapable of doing more than one thing at a time?
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly...
effectively I was being asked to flick a switch which would have led to instant deaths, and I wasn't prepared to do that.
Sir Simon also rejected suggestions by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, made in his witness statement which has already been handed to the inquiry, that it was "very frustrating" to be forced into lockdown because the NHS and social care had failed to get to grip with the decades-old problem of delayed discharges.
This is where patients have to remain in hospital despite being ready to leave because of the lack of support in the community.
Mr Johnson said that about 30% of beds were occupied by such patients.
Sir Simon said that would equate to about 30,000 beds, but there could have been 200,000, perhaps even 800,000 patients in the reasonable worst-case scenario, needing a bed.
"Even if all of those 30,000 beds were freed up - for every one coronavirus patient who was then admitted, there would be another five who need that care and were not able to get it.
"So no, I don't think that is a fair statement in describing the decision calculus for the first wave."
Hence the Cummings message:Watching Lord Stevens make me feel sick. Slippery
(from page 68 of the October 31st transcript https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/w...431/2023-10-31-Module-2-Day-15-Transcript.pdf )"I also must stress I think leaving Hancock in post is a big mistake -- he is a proven liar who nobody believes or shd believe on anything, and we face going into autumn crisis with the cunt still in charge of the NHS still -- therefore we'll be back around that cabinet table with him and stevens bullshitting again in [September]. Hideous prospect."
Sedwill said of his life before government "I've had a gun in my face from Saddam Hussein's bodyguards. A bomb under my seat at a polo match in the foothills of the Himalayas; I've been hosted by a man plotting to have me assassinated; I've been shot at, mortared and even had someone come after me with a suicide vest."
They've broken it down into a whole bunch of modules for a few reasons, including so that some can report long before the final date.Is it right that the enquiry is expected to last until 2026?
Rats do as rats do. On plus side it did focus a lot of minds on how serious things were (not that Cummings could count that as a justification of actions).They tried to grill the cunt Cummings over Barnard Castle today but as usual he will only apologise for how badly it was handled later, not for the original behaviour.
Rats do as rats do. On plus side it did focus a lot of minds on how serious things were (not that Cummings could count that as a justification of actions).
Also who was actually running things whilst Boris was hospital bound and Cummings had scarpered ? Seemed (from the outside) better coordinated
Raab, of all people, no?
Turns out Sedwill isnt getting the whole of next Wednesday, there was just a temporary error with the published timetable.Mark Sedwill of chicken pox parties fame and many other pandemic and Johnson dynamics is one of the people giving evidence next week. Unlike every witness I can think of so far in this poorly paced inquiry, they've pencilled in an entire day for him to give evidence, next Wednesday.
Yes it was Raab.Raab, of all people, no?