Is the UK government an incompentent bunch of liars?

[Oldjohnw]

Then we have the lies about testing...


Hancock is claiming 100,678 tests were carried out....yet the Governments own figures show only 67,409 people were tested.




As they are not being carried out on people, what was testing carried out on?

Did they test 33,269 dogs, ferrets, goldfish?


Or are they simply lying and also counting those in the post again

Isn't it repeat tests because the first didn't work?

[carpetcleaner]

Then we have the lies about testing...


Hancock is claiming 100,678 tests were carried out....yet the Governments own figures show only 67,409 people were tested.




As they are not being carried out on people, what was testing carried out on?

Did they test 33,269 dogs, ferrets, goldfish?


Or are they simply lying and also counting those in the post again

Isn't it repeat tests because the first didn't work?

100,000 tests provided, only 67,409 people used them. Simple really. The government can't force people to be tested.

[carpetcleaner]

Anyone else notice that in the opinion polls the Tories are losing points to Labour, and that Boris’s popularity is waning whilst Starmer’s is rising...

But why let little details like that get in the way

The Conservative lead is not quite as large as it once was. It is still a healthy lead and with no election until 2024 and a large Tory parliamentary majority things are looking very good for people of my political persuasion.

And we aren't in the EU.

In a few short months some people have gone from hoping our exit from the EU could be prevented and that the Conservatives could be removed from power to taking solace in the fact that Labour are not quite as far behind in the opinion polls as they once were.

Happy times.

[Cugel]

A pile of papers an inch thick would have been placed before Thatcher. Rumours were rife so a deep study would have happened. I used to be a member of an honours committee: I have a clue how it works.

Yebbut she is a Tory and hence innocent of all wrongdoing, even a personal friendship with a child abuser like Saville is acceptable if you are a Tory....

There is no evidence allegedly .....

The other thing I love is that CC has no knowledge of History either - He thinks Thatcher honoured Saville, she didn't it was Heath and Cameron

Let us not forget either Thatcher's full support for, and protection of, Pinochet - a murderous dictator of the very worst ilk. She liked him 'cos he too was a fan of neoliberal economics of the Milton Friedman ilk. In fact, Pinochet and Chile were the first CIA/Chicago Skool of Economics experiment in the sort of international relations that consisted of undermining "leftish" governments in South America and replacing them with "business-friendly" types who would keep out the commies and allow Yank economic rape & pillage albeit at the cost of throwing many of their populations out of aeroplanes over the sea after torturing them for a few weeks.

Cugel

[reohn2]

And not least Thatcher's refusal to boycott Apartheid in South Africa due to her husband's business interests in the mining industry there.

[RickH]

Then we have the lies about testing...


Hancock is claiming 100,678 tests were carried out....yet the Governments own figures show only 67,409 people were tested.




As they are not being carried out on people, what was testing carried out on?

Did they test 33,269 dogs, ferrets, goldfish?


Or are they simply lying and also counting those in the post again

Isn't it repeat tests because the first didn't work?

I don't know the official UK position but I've heard of other places using 3 negative tests in a row to be declare someone free of the virus after previouslly testing positive to eliminate the likelihood of a false result from a single test.

[Ben@Forest]

I don't know the official UK position but I've heard of other places using 3 negative tests in a row to be declare someone free of the virus after previouslly testing positive to eliminate the likelihood of a false result from a single test.

I may have already mentioned this but one of my wife's colleagues (NHS) was tested, test was seemingly lost, had another test then they both came back, one positive, one negative.

[carpetcleaner]

And not least Thatcher's refusal to boycott Apartheid in South Africa due to her husband's business interests in the mining industry there.

Mrs Thatcher did not lift any boycott on trade with South Africa when she took over from a Labour government.

The UK trades with all sorts of horrible regimes all the time regardless of whether a Labour or Conservative government is in power.

I didn't notice Tony Blair's government deciding to ban trade with China, Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia etc just because of their appalling human rights records and should we ever have a Labour government again I don't expect things will be much different.

I always found it a bit odd that those who protested against the South African apartheid regime because it treated some of its people very poorly indeed never protested against other regimes which treated all of their people in a terrible manner.

In some cases, as with Cuba, many of them actually praised appalling regimes and their leaders.

A vote for Labour is a vote to trade with countries with appalling humans rights record, as is a vote for the Conservatives.

[carpetcleaner]

A pile of papers an inch thick would have been placed before Thatcher. Rumours were rife so a deep study would have happened. I used to be a member of an honours committee: I have a clue how it works.

Yebbut she is a Tory and hence innocent of all wrongdoing, even a personal friendship with a child abuser like Saville is acceptable if you are a Tory....

There is no evidence allegedly .....

The other thing I love is that CC has no knowledge of History either - He thinks Thatcher honoured Saville, she didn't it was Heath and Cameron

Let us not forget either Thatcher's full support for, and protection of, Pinochet - a murderous dictator of the very worst ilk. She liked him 'cos he too was a fan of neoliberal economics of the Milton Friedman ilk. In fact, Pinochet and Chile were the first CIA/Chicago Skool of Economics experiment in the sort of international relations that consisted of undermining "leftish" governments in South America and replacing them with "business-friendly" types who would keep out the commies and allow Yank economic rape & pillage albeit at the cost of throwing many of their populations out of aeroplanes over the sea after torturing them for a few weeks.

Cugel

Do leftist governments need undermining?

They usually make a mess of things without any help from others, and Allende's government was no different.

It followed a familiar path for lefty, idealist regimes - first lots of spending, then things all start to unravel.

The end came in a traditional South American manner, a military coup.

[mercalia]

Ouch!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/18/britain-trust-coronavirus-government-pandemic-public?

[reohn2]

And not least Thatcher's refusal to boycott Apartheid in South Africa due to her husband's business interests in the mining industry there.

Mrs Thatcher did not lift any boycott on trade with South Africa when she took over from a Labour government.

The UK trades with all sorts of horrible regimes all the time regardless of whether a Labour or Conservative government is in power.

I didn't notice Tony Blair's government deciding to ban trade with China, Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia etc just because of their appalling human rights records and should we ever have a Labour government again I don't expect things will be much different.

I always found it a bit odd that those who protested against the South African apartheid regime because it treated some of its people very poorly indeed never protested against other regimes which treated all of their people in a terrible manner.

In some cases, as with Cuba, many of them actually praised appalling regimes and their leaders.

A vote for Labour is a vote to trade with countries with appalling humans rights record, as is a vote for the Conservatives.

I will reply to you this once,once only as you're arguments are not worthy of further effort or concpsideration such is the poor quality of them.

Speak for yourself

a vote for Corbyn may have made a difference in that respect, but that chance is gone

Any government in the past 50 years or more needed a good dose human rights respect and conscience IMO.

Anyway to get back on track and the OP's(my) question which was:-
Is the present government an incompetent bunch of liars?
The case for their incompetence and lies has been proven to you beyond any shadow of doubt thanks to the dogged efforts of Cunobelin,respected person of this parish.
The only person attempting to defend the present government's incompetence and lies is you,which to any sane right thinking person following the thread,have lost in spectacular fashion.

As I've stated more than once on this thread "there are none so blind as them that will not see", you refuse to look at that which stares you in the face,which is the worse kind of blindness as a result you've obfuscated,squirmed and refused to even answer to the proof put before you on the subject.
A more true Tory there couldn't be by example.

As for the Labour party,I have no affiliations to it beyond a belief that I thought Corbyn would've done a better job as PM than the current wretch now not fit to clean his shoes,and the same goes for Starmer in a different way currently running rings arounsnthe buffoon now stuck alone in at PM's QT parliament unable to defend his pathetic excuses and further lies without the baying mob of back benchtory faithful standing behind him.

Frankly Mr Blackbike/Carpetcleaner,I couldn't give a monkey's what you think of that opinion it has more truth in it than your pathetic excuses which lack in any credibility whatsoever.

Have a nice day

[carpetcleaner]

And not least Thatcher's refusal to boycott Apartheid in South Africa due to her husband's business interests in the mining industry there.

Mrs Thatcher did not lift any boycott on trade with South Africa when she took over from a Labour government.

The UK trades with all sorts of horrible regimes all the time regardless of whether a Labour or Conservative government is in power.

I didn't notice Tony Blair's government deciding to ban trade with China, Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia etc just because of their appalling human rights records and should we ever have a Labour government again I don't expect things will be much different.

I always found it a bit odd that those who protested against the South African apartheid regime because it treated some of its people very poorly indeed never protested against other regimes which treated all of their people in a terrible manner.

In some cases, as with Cuba, many of them actually praised appalling regimes and their leaders.

A vote for Labour is a vote to trade with countries with appalling humans rights record, as is a vote for the Conservatives.

I will reply to you this once,once only as you're arguments are not worthy of further effort or concpsideration such is the poor quality of them.

Speak for yourself

a vote for Corbyn may have made a difference in that respect, but that chance is gone

Any government in the past 50 years or more needed a good dose human rights respect and conscience IMO.

Anyway to get back on track and the OP's(my) question which was:-
Is the present government an incompetent bunch of liars?
The case for their incompetence and lies has been proven to you beyond any shadow of doubt thanks to the dogged efforts of Cunobelin,respected person of this parish.
The only person attempting to defend the present government's incompetence and lies is you,which to any sane right thinking person following the thread,have lost in spectacular fashion.

As I've stated more than once on this thread "there are none so blind as them that will not see", you refuse to look at that which stares you in the face,which is the worse kind of blindness as a result you've obfuscated,squirmed and refused to even answer to the proof put before you on the subject.
A more true Tory there couldn't be by example.

As for the Labour party,I have no affiliations to it beyond a belief that I thought Corbyn would've done a better job as PM than the current wretch now not fit to clean his shoes,and the same goes for Starmer in a different way currently running rings arounsnthe buffoon now stuck alone in at PM's QT parliament unable to defend his pathetic excuses and further lies without the baying mob of back benchtory faithful standing behind him.

Frankly Mr Blackbike/Carpetcleaner,I couldn't give a monkey's what you think of that opinion it has more truth in it than your pathetic excuses which lack in any credibility whatsoever.

Have a nice day

I sense that you don't agree with me.

Thank you for contributing to the diversity of opinions here.

[Cunobelin]

Then we have the lies about testing...


Hancock is claiming 100,678 tests were carried out....yet the Governments own figures show only 67,409 people were tested.




As they are not being carried out on people, what was testing carried out on?

Did they test 33,269 dogs, ferrets, goldfish?


Or are they simply lying and also counting those in the post again

Isn't it repeat tests because the first didn't work?

I don't know the official UK position but I've heard of other places using 3 negative tests in a row to be declare someone free of the virus after previouslly testing positive to eliminate the likelihood of a false result from a single test.

The question is why the Government is again fudging the statistics, because they are still unequivocallyfailing to achieve the target of CARRYING OUT 100,000 tests per, day. The ones in the post, on shelves, on order, in the fridge of Ellen Birkenwater in Chepstow are an irrelevance.. they are not tests carried out which is what the Government claim.

Back to my Minister for Mathematics.

It is like claiming that 67 million people on the isle of Wight

The Isle of Wight population is in fact 142,000 but there are 67 million people available to live there!

Simple really. The government can't force people to live on the Isle of Wight... so the population is 67 million

Only a Tory would make such a claim

[tatanab]

Then we have the lies about testing...


Hancock is claiming 100,678 tests were carried out....yet the Governments own figures show only 67,409 people were tested.




As they are not being carried out on people, what was testing carried out on?

Did they test 33,269 dogs, ferrets, goldfish?


Or are they simply lying and also counting those in the post again

Perhaps we are misunderstanding those figures. Perhaps 100k+ tests were available but only 67k+ people showed up.

If the facilities exist to test 100k per day, then the target has been reached. The fact that fewer people are tested is a different matter.

[Cunobelin]

Then we have the lies about testing...


Hancock is claiming 100,678 tests were carried out....yet the Governments own figures show only 67,409 people were tested.




As they are not being carried out on people, what was testing carried out on?

Did they test 33,269 dogs, ferrets, goldfish?


Or are they simply lying and also counting those in the post again

Perhaps we are misunderstanding those figures. Perhaps 100k+ tests were available but only 67k+ people showed up.

If the facilities exist to test 100k per day, then the target has been reached. The fact that fewer people are tested is a different matter.

Could be, but when we still hear stories about people being unable to get tests, it is still an issue. If as the case has been in the pats, the tests are "possible" but 80 or 90 miles away then they are not truly "available" to that individual

We have certainly had incidents locally with people being turned away without testing as the kits were not there when needed.

This is another example

On Wednesday, there are people turned away because of alack of kits, the same day they are put into the delivery chain, the Government will count them as "available" and consequently a test that contributes the "100,000 performed daily"