OV9

What’s your question?

Rich B wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:00 pm What’s your question?

No question RichB. If you read the article you'll see what is ahead for member states.

At least we won't be funding that house of cards.

Rich B wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:00 pm What’s your question?

Yannis Varoufakis is actually pro-EU but wants it to reform. He helped campaign for Remain in the UK.

“My message is simple yet rich: those of us who disdain the democratic deficit in Brussels, those of us who detest the authoritarianism of a technocracy which is incompetent and contemptuous of democracy, those of us who are most critical of Europe have a moral duty to stay in Europe, fight for it, and democratise it.”

He’s a clever bloke. I’m pro-EU but anti-€ exactly because of the problems that Greece had. I think countries are far better off having their own central bank that gives them more options when things go tits up.

NotoriousREV wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 12:28 pm I think countries are far better off having their own central bank that gives them more options when things go tits up.

Yes agree.

If you look at the United States all falling out over equipment. It's always me first in any club.

Going to be a very bleak winter.

Borrowed time after ‘that’ article...

Zonda_ wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:26 pm Borrowed time after ‘that’ article...

Related to this article?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... aincontent

Beany wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:39 pm

Zonda_ wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:26 pm Borrowed time after ‘that’ article...

Related to this article?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... aincontent

The one in the Times.

https://archive.is/20200418182037/http ... -hq3b9tlgh

Ah, nice, I just assumed that I'd be unable to read that. Obvs the guardian/sky stuff is in response to that, etc.

My sister in law put it well: If you aren’t subscribed to The Times but you’re desperate to read That Article, which is the literary equivalent of castrating the epicunt Boris Johnson with a blunt cheese knife here it is.

Pretty comprehensive rebuttal here: https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04 ... t-article/

Even if you have a fairly big axe to grind, it’s pretty obvious for anyone with a memory that extends beyond 3 weeks that the Times’ article paints a distorted, if not plainly inaccurate, picture.

The fact that they are using that platrorm to attempt to deny it says everything.

Zonda_ wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:04 pm

Beany wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:39 pm

Zonda_ wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:26 pm Borrowed time after ‘that’ article...

Related to this article?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... aincontent

The one in the Times.

https://archive.is/20200418182037/http ... -hq3b9tlgh

Was Boris really on holiday that much around Brexit, the flooding and emerging coronavirus? Blimey.

Zonda_ wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:03 am The fact that they are using that platrorm to attempt to deny it says everything.

How else would you have expected them to put out a point by point rebuttal of a number of points of misinformation in a newspaper article? Give an interview to another newspaper to write another article?

Government website to correct factual inaccuracies seems perfectly legitimate to me unless you view all mouthpieces of the state as propaganda... If all those points are further misinformation then I'll wait for the follow up Times article where they'll put out another smashing expose...

GG. wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2020 11:21 pm Pretty comprehensive rebuttal here: https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04 ... t-article/

Even if you have a fairly big axe to grind, it’s pretty obvious for anyone with a memory that extends beyond 3 weeks that the Times’ article paints a distorted, if not plainly inaccurate, picture.

My god As a rebuttal, that's stunningly weak. It's like they send the office junior to make their excuses for them (and stay anonymous whilst doing it, so they can backtrack if he fucks it up)

For me, particular low-lights were:

1) "The suggestion that the government’s attitude was nonchalant is wrong. Extensive and detailed work was going on in government because of Coronavirus, as shown above." While stating absolutely nothing that the government actually did!

2) "This anonymous source is variously described as a ‘senior adviser to Downing Street’ and a ‘senior Downing Street adviser’. The two things are not the same. One suggests an adviser employed by the government in No10. The other someone who provides ad hoc advice. Which is it?" - If you can't defend yourself, discredit the source (even if you don't know who it is )

3) "The Department for Health began work on boosting PPE stocks in January, before the first confirmed UK case." - Began work by holding meetings and then right royally ballsing up any practical delivery (wrong specifications for homegrown ventilators, missed email for EU ventilator procurement etc etc)

4) "The government followed scientific advice at all times." - Blame someone else is always a great strategy. Except when the advice comes from a panl that you've appointed yourself, and then refuse to release the minutes of the meeting, or even state who was actually there (specifically in contravention of your own code of practice) - https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... gkl-mRUK3c

5) "The Government has been extremely proactive in implementing lessons learnt around pandemic preparedness, including from Exercise Cygnus. This includes being ready with legislative proposals that could rapidly be tailored to what became the Coronavirus Act, plans to strengthen excess death planning, planning for recruitment and deployment of retired staff and volunteers, and guidance for stakeholders and sectors across government." - It's a bloody good job they had the foresight to censor the full publication of the Cygnus findings, because it warned *exactly* what would happen, and *exactly* where the weaknesses were - lack of ICU beds and shortages of PPE. So what did they do - cut the number of ICU beds and fragmented the PPE supply chain (citing "financial constraints"). The UK has 6 ICU beds per 100,000 people, compared to 29 per 100,000 in Germany.

I love their justification for Boris not attending all COBRA meetings. He doesn’t attend all meetings therefore it’s ok when he doesn’t attend all meetings. It doesn’t seem to matter that these meetings were pretty fucking important and he didn’t appear to have anything better to do at the time.

He's a "big picture" kinda guy, details are for the little people

Y’all are missing GG’s point. He’s a conservative so he must be doing a good job and anyone suggesting otherwise is engaged in a vicious smear campaign

Meh, hindsight makes everything wrong.

What about all the people who’ve been saying he’s an embarrassingly incompetent PM since he got the job?