So far, so unsurprising.
But is anybody else struck by the uncanny resemblance of Lord Mark Sedwill, the former head of the civil service, to Sir Humphrey Appleby as played by Nigel Hawthorne in Yes Minister?
|
I haven't watched much of it but we did spot the resemblance.
The only thing that's surprised me so far is how professional and mature everyone was in a time of crisis. I thought it would be like my old 6th Form common room but it wasn't.
|
>> I thought it would be like my old 6th Form common room ....
>>
....where cries of "Jaws mode w**k!" echoed from the rafters?....
|
Oh no TnE!
Our common room was a bastion of rational informed debate compared to the puerile bickering this inquest has revealed so far.
(And if you got caught swearing you were scarred for life emotionally by being held up as an example of someone who 'shows a distinct lack of vocabulary')
|
|
... wouldn't know about mine. Too busy playing 7 card brag to listen..,
|
>> in a time of crisis. I thought it would be like my old 6th Form
>> common room but it wasn't.
Dont roast me Flashman.
|
I have watched some of it.
Clearly a bit of a shambles with a complete lack of preparedness at the outset - an observation for which a public enquiry is superfluous.
Par for the course for witnesses seems to be:
- apologise "sincerely" where actions and comments were undeniable misjudgements
- protest that the deficiencies relate to the actions and behaviours of others
- insist that they were entirely alert to the risks posed by covid and urged earlier action
We have yet to hear from the other "side" - mainly Sunak, Hancock and Johnson. Will they (a) own up, (b) attack each other or (c) cast doubt on the testimony of those already cross examined.
Ultimately Johnson and Hancock will be held responsible - justifiably or not. They may protest they were ill advised by senior civil servants, special advisors etc - but their political careers are over, they were top of the greasy pole, and a target all (but themselves) can agree upon.
|
|
If only everyone had listened to Matt Hancock much earlier we'd have been OK.
|
>> If only everyone had listened to Matt Hancock much earlier we'd have been OK.
Just heard his evidence about 13-14 (?) March broadcast on the radio while I was driving home from Kettrrin.
When my Grandson is introduced to the word dissembling I'm playing that as an example.....
|
Mea culpa is is a concept unfamiliar to all (AFAIK) to all those involved in the pandemic - politicians and civil servants alike.
The common approach - express regret at the outcome and blame someone else for the shambles. Hancock is no exception!
The key output from the enquiry is to "identify the lessons to be learned from the above, to inform preparations for future pandemics across the UK".
The public simply want to blame somebody for their loss - the enquiry is right - it happened, get over it, fix it for the future.
To me it exposes some fundamental weaknesses in leadership, accountability and democratic structures. That it would have been better had Corbyn prevailed in 2019 I seriously doubt. Johnson seems to have been completely deficient on leadership, but top notch on bx11sh1t.
Last edited by: Terry on Thu 30 Nov 23 at 17:51
|
>> That it would have been better had Corbyn prevailed in 2019 I seriously doubt.
In a lot of ways the die was cast institutionally and the lack of a real pandemic for >100yrs would have meant deaths etc would have been little different.
However I think Corbyn himself, and his team, would have been more competent, or at least less incompetent. OTOH, while Seamus Milne isn't Dominic Cummings, there was scope for unelected chumps.
The big difference though is I don't think Labour would have spaffed squillions if public money like Boris did.
|
"The big difference though is I don't think Labour would have spaffed squillions if public money like Boris did."
I thought that's what Labour were best at, even without a pandemic! :-)
|
Boris is on today www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOkKmziko6o
Does anyone, Bromps maybe, know who all the people in the background diligently staring at their screens and tapping away are, what their role is, and what they are doing, as they rarely seem to be listening?
I'm guessing a mixture of civil servants and legal bods.
|
|
Those inquiry legal bills don't just rack all by themselves you know.
|
I'd imagine they're either inquiry admin or support staff for the 'front of house' KCs. Big cases in the courts, back in my day when files were paper and the authority cases referred to were in bound books, there was an army of clerks from Chambers and the instructing Solicitors etc making sure this stuff was right place/right time.
Protocols following the Lord Wolf's report on court procedures mean much more stuff being put together and circulated ahead of court day - initially onpaper. Those document bundles are now electronic and on screen. Somebody needs to be making sure what the Judge, Counsel, their Juniors and the witnesses see in front of them are all the same.
If you watch/listen you will hear people ask for document 'XYZ257' or similar. Somebody has to make that happen.
Since the phone hacking inquiry, and probably before, these things are livestreamed. Again, making that happen needs people.
|
Thanks - when you see how many there are there, and they are, I'm sure, just the tip of the iceberg, you can see how the vast costs of these things stacks up. But it sometimes just feels to me like they aren't even really paying attention!!
So Sooty is also correct :-)
|
Alexa, show me document 1234.
Joking aside I did read legal admin would be one of the first places to be replaced/assisted by AI to reduce headcount for things like this.
|
>Joking aside...
That isn't joking. That's how it should be. One controlled document. It's standard ISO Document QA stuff.
|
>> Thanks - when you see how many there are there, and they are, I'm sure,
>> just the tip of the iceberg, you can see how the vast costs of these
>> But it sometimes just feels to me like they aren't even really paying attention!!
>>
>> So Sooty is also correct :-)
You've given 'your man' the witness's proof and the copy of All ER he needed. You know that he's going to be expounding his argument (or tormenting the witness) for another 40 minutes before there's anything else.
You'd see them passing notes between themselves. Not work. Either organising their social lives or playing virtual chess.
The court's own clerk was also bored s***less. You'd get obseessed with the verbal tic one of the Barristers had and keep a five bar gate score of how often it occurred....
|
In some ways it's quite addictive to watch (yes, I'm having a slow day :-) ) but it strikes me that the verbal stuff is again, just the tip of the iceberg.
There is just so much documentation and then on top of that the words of the witnesses I don't really understand who is going to read the lot, assimilate it and come up with whatever outcomes there may be.
|
I had a similar addiction to the Leveson inquiry.
|
|
Could be the stenographers but I thought they are generally in their own room nowadays.
|
|
Nah too many of them and not all actively typing.
|
It is all becoming very predictable. Take the oath, express deep regret, with the benefit of hindsight acknowledge some mistakes were made, blame someone else.
The purpose is to understand what happened so we may be better prepared for a repeat. Reality - it is fast becoming a public soap opera (drama is too kind a description).
Following the pattern of previous public enquiries - a report (with a following wind) possibly before the decade is out. All key participants will long since have moved on, many may have died.
It will cost £m to £bn. The media will get endless column inches. Everybody will have had an opportunity to input and blame someone for the untimely death of grandma.
All very British - eg: Levinson, Iraq, b***** Sunday, contaminated blood, Grenfell, etc. Extended timescales neuter the conclusions rather than adding to the quality of the report.
Bluntly - it's happened, if there is a real prospect of prosecution for fraud or corruption - get the police on the job, otherwise document and act on lessons learned. Should take no more than 6 months. Then move on.
|
I difficult one, make the inquiry statutory then people have to turn but it takes forever and people lawyer up. Plus it costs a ton of cash.
Make it non-statutory much quicker, much cheaper however no one is required to turn up, so probably not much use in getting it very big complex issues. OK for smaller stuff though.
|
In the real world, a pointless exercise. We have done all these before. The only people who come out smiling are the lawyers.
Waste of time.
Takes too long.
Costs too much.
Serves no useful purpose.
|
The alternative to having an inquiry is not having one, which would be unacceptable. Galactic sums were wasted there was untold suffering and it could have been better without a doubt. And there will be another one.
It's inefficient but it needs to be effective. The worry is it might not be.
|
>> In the real world, a pointless exercise. We have done all these before. The only
>> people who come out smiling are the lawyers.
>> Waste of time.
>> Takes too long.
>> Costs too much.
>> Serves no useful purpose.
The only one of those I agree with is that it takes too long although I suppose costs too much follws on from time taken.
I don't know how you solve that. I have the impression the Heather Hallett is running a pretty tight ship with parties timebound and not being permitted repeated bites at the cherry.
|
|
At the end of the day, everyone involved sees it as a way to get noticed and get some sound bites in. Nothing will come of it, just like all the previous enquiries.
|
>> At the end of the day, everyone involved sees it as a way to get
>> noticed and get some sound bites in. Nothing will come of it, just like all
>> the previous enquiries.
Sorry Zero but that's......
Rhymes with R*******...
|
|
Only for a civil servant who earns his corn being involved. For everyone else? tis fact.
|
>> Only for a civil servant who earns his corn being involved. For everyone else? tis
>> fact.
Whatever!!
|
|
Well so far, nothing has been revealed that we didn't already know or correctly surmise.
|
>> Well so far, nothing has been revealed that we didn't already know or correctly surmise.
You mean that Boris and Handcock are both dissembling liars?
|
>> >> Well so far, nothing has been revealed that we didn't already know or correctly
>> surmise.
>>
>> You mean that Boris and Handcock are both dissembling liars?
And cummins is a piece of dirt? Yes all that.
|
|
The impression that I come away with from the Covid business is the number of people who think the rules are for ordinary people and don't apply to them - from Cummings to Kinnock. "You do know who I am, don't you?"
|
I'll say it again - THE PURPOSE IS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT RIGHT AND WRONG TO BETTER INFORM THE PLANNING AND RESPONSE TO FUTURE PANDEMICS.
Deliberately capitalised. It is not (or should not be) about blame, or grandstanding witnesses, or political point scoring, or finding closure etc.
Effectiveness is about getting the job done quickly, efficiently, with adequate analysis to ensure appropriate conclusions are drawn and acted upon. Those who have nothing to add to the goal should not get involved.
Public inquiries should be strictly time limited, with powers to call all witnesses as necessary to reach a conclusion. An initial report WITHOUT CAVEATS should be issued in the case of Covid within (say) 6 months.
And pigs might fly!!
Last edited by: Terry on Thu 7 Dec 23 at 15:50
|
Good luck with that Terry.
How you could exclude those who lost relatives, businesses etc and who want closure (whatever that is) in way that's politically (small p) acceptable?
I've not seen witnesses grandstanding and if they try then the Judge will pull them up.
The inquiries terms of reference are here:
covid19.public-inquiry.uk/documents/terms-of-reference/
|
>> Good luck with that Terry.
>>
>> How you could exclude those who lost relatives, businesses etc and who want closure (whatever
>> that is)
Exactly Closure varies to all involved, and invariably means being able to blame someone, anyone, for whatever reason* It has no place in an official inquiry.
*Specially the Richard heads who wish to include the covid cures/jabs
|
I think we have to accept that it will be inefficient. Massive duplication with KC's asking near-identical questions on behalf of the different stakeholders, the need for transparency, the necessity for legal process, the inaccessibility of much of the evidence, the fact that much of the more interesting bits are red herrings, e.g. much has been made of Johnson's "let it rip", "they are going to die soon anyway" which in a different context sound bad but were perfectly valid IMO at the time. I'm pretty sure our own discussions here included the idea that if everyone was going to get it anyway, it might be better to let it spread provided it didn't crash the NHS (which of course it would have).
The test will be when the next pandemic comes. Sadly the main lesson will be not to use WhatsApp.
|
>> The test will be when the next pandemic comes. Sadly the main lesson will be
>> not to use WhatsApp.
I am not sure how whatsapp ever became part of policy/government process. Its use should be forbidden in government with a controlled alternative developed/used.
|
>> I am not sure how whatsapp ever became part of policy/government process. Its use should
>> be forbidden in government with a controlled alternative developed/used.
Familiarity. There are several gov options designed specifically for senior politicians but they don't like using them so don't.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Dec 23 at 10:44
|
In the good old days a conversation could be held, strong and unpopular opinions expressed, arguments, etc - all part of the process of arriving at a conclusion/decision.
Communication is now frequently recorded by email, WhatsApp and text.
This will limit clear and frank discussion. Politicians and public servants will be nervous that any (unwoke) utterance may ultimately end up in the public domain.
Rather than improving governance and decision making, fear of future exposure will limit debate to the anodyne and trivial. Quality will be diminished, not improved.
|
Covid Inquiry - Kevin
