The Covid Inquiry is starting to deal with PPE sleaze. It's very hard to feel confident it will deal with it well. But here are the questions it should be answering. https://goodlaw.social/4kbs
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
It may be that Tom Hayhoe, the Covid counter-fraud Commissioner, will be following the sleaze and answer those questions. It's very quiet on that front. Do we know his remit and potential powers? Has he started work? Does it overlap with the inquiry? Is he liaising with the Serious Fraud Office?
The inquiry may not be there to
investigate fraud. It is there to look at state effectiveness. Why was PPE not provided to keep people safe and how many died from the lack of it?
Lastly, I have heard politicians and others, at enquiries and elsewhere, claiming that PPE for flu was different to that needed for Covid19.
I strongly believe that this is BS and needs challenging or at least some technical justification.
…
- PPE contingency holding needed to be massively increased
- Respiratory ventilation equipment needed to be included in the contingency holding and in large numbers
- to save money, SOMEBODY decided that for these above 2 items, to save money, the “supply chains would be reinforced”.
WTF! …
… include epidemiologists (from ICL I believe).
I looked into it early on in 2020, following a lead stated by Hugh Pym in the BBC TV news at the time.
Snippets of the minutes were cited in various published NHS articles and minutes. The main findings I pieced together of were: …
The last full scale 3 day flu pandemic exercise carried out before Covid19 was made in 2017. It was never fully published, unlike the others. It was the first in the series to …
That GLP not called to provide your trove of evidence diligently unearthed shows what a sham this “inquiry” is. Time to start gathering evidence for an inquiry on the Covid inquiry….!
And NOTHING of any use will happen, nobody will go to jail, no money will be returned and "The System" will ultimately cop any blame so that real guilty parties don't have to.
Comments
investigate fraud. It is there to look at state effectiveness. Why was PPE not provided to keep people safe and how many died from the lack of it?
Lastly, I have heard politicians and others, at enquiries and elsewhere, claiming that PPE for flu was different to that needed for Covid19.
I strongly believe that this is BS and needs challenging or at least some technical justification.
Good luck!
I love your work.
- PPE contingency holding needed to be massively increased
- Respiratory ventilation equipment needed to be included in the contingency holding and in large numbers
- to save money, SOMEBODY decided that for these above 2 items, to save money, the “supply chains would be reinforced”.
WTF! …
I looked into it early on in 2020, following a lead stated by Hugh Pym in the BBC TV news at the time.
Snippets of the minutes were cited in various published NHS articles and minutes. The main findings I pieced together of were: …
The last full scale 3 day flu pandemic exercise carried out before Covid19 was made in 2017. It was never fully published, unlike the others. It was the first in the series to …
Because all of the major parties rely on that for funding.
Starmer and Reeves alone have had Labour taking millions in bribes (aka “donations”) from conflict of interest companies and individuals .
Ali was minuscule by comparison.
Which is why this guy terrifies him.
It will reach 'conclusions'
It will not make formal complaints to the police resulting in crime numbers being issued
It will gift the criminals involved total immunity
All that's learnt is that demanding an inquiry prevents anyone going to prison.
Job done
That should save the cost of an Inquiry.......