That Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock should be prosecuted for the avoidable Covid deaths

[LlynTegid]

The part 2 report of the Covid inquiry finds that at least 20,000 deaths were avoidable, had restrictions come in a week earlier.

Various other findings confirming the failures of Mr Johnson and Mr Hancock.

I think they should face criminal charges, such as corporate manslaughter given government is an employer. AIBU

I don't know why Johnson nominated Lady Hallett. She was then the jurist de jour and some one probably suggested her to BJ.

Mumsner deleted my entirely factual post. Most of MSM is completely captured and I wondered was Mumsnet. He who pays the piper, call the tune.

How many days off has Keir Starmer had since he became PM? Hopefully he hasn't had four days off in a row.

It's all very well Baroness Hallett and others saying that it was clear by the end of January 2020 that the virus posed a serious and immediate threat, but I remember looking at social media posts of some of the government's critics at the time, e.g. the editor of the Lancet posted this January 23 2020;

"A call for caution please. Media are escalating anxiety by talking of a “killer virus” + “growing fears”. In truth, from what we currently know, 2019-nCoV has moderate transmissibility and relatively low pathogenicity. There is no reason to foster panic with exaggerated language."

Devi Sridhar, who became one of Nicola Sturgeon's prominent Covid advisers posted this Feb 17 2020;

Devi Sridhar - 3:45 PM · Feb 17, 2020
WHO clearly saying it is NOT calling #COVID19 a pandemic b/c majority of cases are in China & majority of cases outside of China have direct link to China. DrMikeRyan # facts not fear.

I can see from the HOC diary that Boris Johnson spoke with President Xi of China Feb 18, 2020.

Starmer cancelled a few holidays in order to chair Cobra meetings, Southport riots for example.

What has that to do with the Covid Inquiry and Johnson?

You posted, 'Great guy, hardworking' - I assumed you didn't approve of PMs taking four days off work in a row.

Yes, she was a workaholic and expected nothing less from those who worked with her. So definitely no parties!

You did assume that? Right

Take it up with MNHQ if you didn't like your posts being deleted.

What a ridiculous idea.

They really have no idea whether deaths would have been avoided or how many.

Nor do they know how many deaths and other issues were caused by things like lockdowns.

What a great way to encourage people into politics, prosecute those making complex decisions without perfect answers when their decisions aren't perfect.

Thank you would never have thought of that.

I will take it up with the unpaid mod (woman) monitoring this very thread.

She will make it right. Right?

It must be possible to prosecute Boris for something: the lies, if nothing else. You or I can be jailed for lying about who was driving a speeding car. Boris swore an oath to tell the whole truth at the privileges committee hearing (and I don’t know why the bible didn’t burst into flames); and apparently, this oath only happens if the panel believes the witness is unreliable with the truth. He could (and should) be in court for perjury for telling lie after lie. And I wonder if there isn’t some archaic law that states that a prime minister of Her Majesty’s government who lies to Her Majesty shall have their head chopped off…

Yes, and one of the things to remember is that no one wanted to lock down too soon. Because there are limits to the degree that you can do that, and if it's too soon you are wasting the resources that are used by taking a measure like that.

The oter thing people seem to forget is that while transmission seemed to slow when things were most restricted, as soon as there was any easing up, it would ramp up and start to circulate again. Had they shot down sooner, they'd have had to ease restrictions sooner (or sufferered the other effects of not doing so.)

You can prevent movement to an island for a while, but unless you are going to do it fully and permanently, a virus like covid will get there.

People also act as if everyone knew they'd have a vaccination in a year or so. They didn't. had there no been one developed, or it had taken much longer, they would have had to stop with restricting peopel at some point. I don't think it would have been much longer than what people put up with, the effects on many individuals, especially kids, and the economy, have already been devastating.

I don't think Theresa May would have gone for the circuit-breaker idea, as proposed by Baroness Hallett in her summary so there's a difference of opinion already. I remember May speaking out against the circuit-breaker idea at the time and abstaining on a lockdown vote;

^Theresa May 2020^
"I want to comment on the circuit-breaker idea. I looked at the Sage paper of 21 September and what was absolutely clear was that this was not a two-to-three-week circuit breaker, full stop, end of story. It would have had to have been repeated, possibly again and again, and I doubt if any economy could have borne the irreparable damage that would have done, with the impact on lives that that would have had, which would have been significant..."

Social media and the internet is the reason that fear and panic spread around the world so quickly. Also, almost everybody having the internet at home was one of the main things that made lockdown possible. Perhaps Tony Blair knew something when he said in the late 90s “I want everyone to have the internet at home”.

The poster I was replying to claimed that Jeremy Corbyn would not have broken Covid rules in Number 10 if he had been PM. I disagreed as Corbyn was a prolific Covid rule-breaker, as per my links.

@TempestTost It was because of the forthcoming vaccine that they were able to drag out the 2021 lockdown (and yes, it was lockdown) for so long.
”just until the over 70s vaccinated.”
”the over 60s.”
”the over 50s.”
”significant normality by Easter.” Which year?
”the over 40s.”
Maybe children and unborn babies too.
”irreversible roadmap to freedom in June.”
”I mean July.”
And Boris never got his big moment of “it is with great pleasure that I announce the end of restrictions, never to return…” (which he might have said whether it was scripted or not), because the fear machine was then screaming “UKRAINE! Pleeeeeeeeeeease take in refugees, moments after we criminalised you for having your grandchildren over.”

Different explanation here:

Boris Johnson chose to swear an oath on the Bible before giving evidence to the Privileges Committee to add gravity to his testimony and underscore his assertion that he was telling the truth.

This move was a rare occurrence for a parliamentary committee hearing, and it meant that his evidence was subject to the Perjury Act of 1911, making lying or providing a false account a potential criminal offence. By taking the oath, Johnson was attempting to convince the committee members and the public that he was being completely honest when he denied knowingly misleading Parliament over the "Partygate" gatherings during COVID-19 lockdowns.

In his opening statement to the committee, immediately after taking the oath, Johnson stated: "Hand on heart, I did not lie to the House". He argued that any statements he made were in "good faith and on the basis of what I honestly knew and believed at the time". The oath was a way of reinforcing his defence that he had not intentionally misled MPs, which was the central question of the committee's investigation.

And if you believe that you’ll believe anything Clav.

It didn't fool the committee

@Clavinova Why isn’t he in court charged with perjury, then? He told lie after lie, and they found against him. (Yes I know, he had been briefed to begin every statement with “I believed at the time”.) As for him choosing to take the oath - that was probably someone whispering in his ear that it might help his case a little. I will only believe in democracy when he is hauled before the courts for something: meanwhile, he is getting away it because he is rich, and well-connected. Government by the super-rich for the super-rich.

scalt
Why isn’t he in court charged with perjury, then? He told lie after lie, and they found against him

I can only remember one specific claim without looking at the report. The committee claimed that Johnson would have been able to see a gathering in the press office (on one specific occasion) on the way up to his flat at almost 10pm at night, after late-night Covid meetings in his office. How do you prove he saw something on that occasion? I've seen the way he walks with his head bowed down, looking at his feet. And after a tiring day, with meetings until 10pm?

He didn't see any party because he was looking the other way?

Did he not hear anything either?

I don't think there's been any suggestion that Johnson wasn't sober himself whilst working. In fact several former officials said he mostly drank water. The photos of him drinking alcohol were taken some months apart after 6/7 pm. Keir Starmer has been photographed multiple times drinking a pint of beer in the middle of the day, at pubs all around the country. Then there was the curry and beer evening - Starmer claimed he carried on working after the beer. I know that Nicola Sturgeon drinks alcohol.

Was it a small group of people talking or a party?

Come on Clav, we know you will defend Johnson to the hilt but this is really far fetched even for you.

You wouldn't accept those excuses from your children, would you?

"Didn't see the gathering because I was looking down"