Despite desperate attempts by Jack and Carlaw, aided and abetted by Scottish Labour and the GMB, loyally broadcast by BBC Scotland, the truth will out.
A letter to the Herald this morning reminds us of the facts:
Only Westminster had the legal authority to impose a lock-down and a quarantine of ports, tunnels and airports. No other administration in the UK had these legal powers. As I stated in a previous letter, the devolved administrations were “daft” to go along with the “four nations approach”, where London was setting policy based on the SAGE advice where they were not allowed to ask direct questions.
And, a tweeted Sky News broadcast reminds us of something rarely broadcast, that the the First Minister was pushing as hard as she could for lock-down at least three weeks before it happened on 23rd March.
And, we were reminded by Edinburgh Professor Sridhar, that the WHO had called for action at the end of January, yet the UK Government chose to delay:
Do not let them tell you anything else.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Yip , it is all on Johnson ‘s shoulders , he took the decisions for the whole of the UK , he is to blame for the genocide ! .
LikeLiked by 5 people
This Westminster “government” appear criminally responsible for an untold number of deaths. There just has to be a reckoning over all this, the whole top tier of them should be brought to court and held to account. A court of impartial judges, if that can be found in the UK, I have my doubts.
I would like to see them all jailed for a very long time. Scotland must have all the evidence it needs to show this so called “Union” is not worth a toss, and urgent action must be made to ensure Independence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A simple reminder – Who was it who led that, of the Covid-19, the UK should “take it on the chin” ??? In other words, Do Nothing, Let it rip through the population like a medieval plague.
It was none other than the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, claiming to be following the ‘science’ as defined by his so SAGE advisers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is from Prospect mag.
“Johnson made no secret of his reluctance to instigate full lockdown; his dismay at taking away “the inalienable right of free-born people of the UK to go to the pub” was a rare occasion when one of his statements during this crisis seemed heartfelt. During the period that the government claimed to be “following” (rather than, as now, “listening to”) the science,” it could shield behind the authority of Vallance and the Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty. But evidently it was possible back then to pick “the science” you chose to “follow”—on the one hand the discredited idea of herd immunity, on the other the international experts advising the WHO. The performance of Vallance and Whitty so far gives no confidence that they would have opposed any tendency for the government to select this “science” out of political expediency.”
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/would-an-earlier-lockdown-have-halved-the-death-toll-neil-ferguson-coronavirus
LikeLiked by 1 person
When you demand the right to make decisions for other people,it should be be no surprise that you are subsequently held accountable for those decisions.
In Scotland,unionists call that a culture of grievance.
LikeLike
Yesterday there were tweets from care home managers about the supply of testing kits which were posted on TuSc.
The Guardian has followed up suspicions raised by care home managers that those sending out testing kits for covid19 were deliberately inflating the numbers tested. Two managers of different homes raised separate concerns. One had asked for tests to enable her to carry out tests on 20 people. She received two packets each with 50 test kits. She was also advised that if she wished to do more tests she should ask to be sent additional kits rather than use those remaining (which are perfectly usable) after her initial testing.
Another manager wanted to do three tests. She received three kits (which goes to show some can count) but parts of each kit had items missing meaning they could not be used. Her request for replacements resulted in one being sent (bad counting).
This from the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/14/oversupply-of-kits-to-care-homes-raises-concern-over-covid-19-test-figures
“Care homes are receiving far more coronavirus testing kits than they order, raising concern that the extra supplies help the government inflate the number of people it claims have been tested.
The apparently widespread nature of the practice in England has prompted fresh suspicion that ministers are counting swab kits sent out as tests done to exaggerate official figures….
…One care home manager wrote last week to residents’ families telling them that when she recently asked for kits with which to test loved ones and staff, “instead of sending 200, I was sent 400”.
“I telephoned the company that has been contracted by the government to complete the testing, as I was concerned that I had received someone else’s testing sets by mistake, to be told that they have been told to send out double the amount that has been requested, [and] they then record that number as daily tests completed,” added the manager, who we have chosen not to name.
“We have had providers who told us they asked for 100 tests and got 500 tests. It doesn’t make sense,” Nadra Ahmed, executive chair of the National Care Association, which represents independent care homes, told the Guardian…
…Gabriel Scally, a member of the Independent Sage committee of scientific and medical experts, said the dispatching of extra kits to care homes appeared to be a deliberate attempt to distort the total that ministers announce at the government’s press briefings as the number of tests carried out.
“This appears to be a fiddling of the figures,” he said. “If, as reported, unnecessary and unrequested sampling kits have been dispatched so that they could be counted as ‘tests’, this is disgraceful and, in my view, verging on the corrupt.
LikeLike
What do we know and suspect about the testing of Covid19 carried out for the UK government.
We know that the Office of National Statistics in the person of Sir David Norgrove has rebuked Matt Hancock for the quality of data produced. The entire letter is worth a read.
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/sir-david-norgrove-response-to-matt-hancock-regarding-the-governments-covid-19-testing-data/
“The way the data are analysed and presented currently gives them limited value for the first purpose [helping to understand the epidemic]. The aim seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests, even at the expense of understanding. It is also hard to believe the statistics work to support the testing programme itself. The statistics and analysis serve neither purpose well….
…To mention just a few issues in relation to the data as currently presented:
the headline total of tests adds together tests carried out with tests posted out. This distinction is too often elided during the presentation at the daily press conference, where the relevant figure may misleadingly be described simply as the number of tests carried out. There are no data on how many of the tests posted out are in fact then successfully completed. The slides used in the daily press conference do not show the date when the tests were carried out;
the notes to the daily slides rightly say that some people may be tested more than once and it has been widely reported that swabs carried out simultaneously on a single patient are counted as multiple tests. But it is not clear from the published data how often that is the case. Figures for the overall number of people being tested have previously been published but are not available in the published time series;
the top summary presents the number of positive results from diagnostic tests (pillars 1 and 2) alongside the total number of tests across all pillars. This presentation gives an artificially low impression of the proportion of tests returning a positive diagnosis;
more generally the testing figures are presented in a way that is difficult to understand. Many of the key numbers make little sense without recourse to the technical notes which are themselves sometimes hard to follow. This includes the supporting spreadsheets, which, while welcome, make it difficult to extract even basic trends.”
LikeLike