Tuesday, 29 December 2020

Why People In Authority Keep Breaking Their Own Rules

So Wee Nippy Krankie got caught last week breaking her own Beijing Boak rules...and not one single person in the opposition parties in the Scottish parliament pulled her up about it. 

Despite a photograph of Wee Nippy without a mask being splashed over every newspaper and TV news station in the country, there was a deafening silence from the Scottish Conservatives, Labour, the Greens, and the Lib-Dems at PM Questions last week.

Hmmm, very strange.

Because politics is very tribal, it's brutal. Opposition parties lie in wait, like tigers, ready to pounce on the slightest 'mistake' of their counter-parts in Government. 

Yet the Scottish Parliament chamber fell silent last week. How bizarre, especially when it was about the virus, a subject normally so important to them that our whole economy has had to be shut down and people's livelihoods destroyed in its name?

Could it be that the only reason why such a breach of the rules - by the person who makes the rules - was ignored by all the other politicians is because they too have been secretly breaching the rules? 

Think about it. 

It would be highly embarrassing if you were to call for the head of the First Minister for doing something which is later revealed you were doing too.

So maybe now it makes sense. 

Instead of forming a circular firing squad, they all agreed beforehand that, in this particular case, it would be best for all of them to stay silent. 

That's why every single one of them from every single party 'slung it a deafie'.

But the story doesn't end there. 

It begs yet another question.

Why do we see so many important and influential people in authority breaking the very rules that they impose on us? 

You have to admit it's a fair question, because the list of people who have broken virus rules reads like a who's-who of our top scientists, doctors and politicians:

Nicola Sturgeon, Prof. Neil Ferguson (aka Professor Lockdown), Dr Catherine Calderwood, MP Margaret Ferrier, Labours Jeremy Corbyn, Robert Jenrick, Stephen Kinnock, and PM Adviser Dominic Cummings all got caught breaking virus rules...and I suspect this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. 

Bear in mind, these are only the ones who got caught. We know politicians never admit to anything or apologise for anything unless they actually get caught. How many more rule breakers could we add to that list who didn't get caught? 

And I've been wondering what makes them do it? 

The answer could be simpler than you think. 

Those in a position of power may have just looked at the virus figures and stats and concluded that the threat from the old Beijing Boak is not quite as serious as the official line they are obliged to push.

Because the latest figures and stats for Scotland reveal that on 23rd December there were 56 patients in Scottish ICU's with the virus. That's not very many when you consider that we have 585 ICU beds available for virus patients in Scotland (plus the 1000 bed Louisa Jordan hospital at Glasgow's SECC). 

When there are 1585 ICU beds available in Scotland for virus patients, yet only 56 of those beds are being used, surely it’s perfectly reasonable to ask what’s going on?

The two main excuses I’ve heard from our political leaders as to why lockdowns are necessary is to: 

1) Protect the NHS 
2) Stop the virus spreading

That just doesn't make sense. How can any of those be true? 

Because we know that the NHS in Scotland is only using a small fraction of the 1585 ICU beds they have available, so the NHS is nowhere near bursting at the seams. It is clearly not in need of “protecting”. 

And as we have also learned from past experience, lockdowns do not stop the virus spreading, they only stop it spreading during the period of lockdown (after which the virus resumes where it left off). 

So the question still remains, WHY have we been under constant lockdowns since March? 

We are regularly reminded in every newspaper and every TV news station that there has been over 70,000 deaths in the UK from this virus. But they don't seem so keen to mention that deaths of people aged under 60 years old with no underlying health issues is less than 600.

This virus is very infectious and very nasty but the figures show that it does NOT kill the majority of people. The survival rate, the percentage of the population who do NOT die from this virus is more than 99.9%. Is it really proportionate to destroy a whole country because of a disease which has a 99.9% survival rate (and now a vaccine on its way for the other 0.1%)?

While I do think it's fair to say that the NHS is certainly under some degree of pressure, it also should be noted that this is almost entirely due to poor management, inefficiency, and years of underfunding by successive Governments. 

To say it's on its knees, or it's near to collapse, or it's NOT able to cope, just doesn't seem to hold true. The figures just don't bear that out. 

It's simply untrue to say that lockdowns are proportionate with circumstances and figures such as these. 

As time goes by, maybe we're now starting to figure out WHY many of those in authority continue to break the virus rules they impose on us: They simply don't feel the dangers are as bad as they've been telling us they are.  

This would also explain why they don't seem too keen to condemn any of their colleagues who get caught breaking the rules. If they give a 'pass' to their colleagues when they get caught breaking rules, then their colleagues are obliged to do the same for them if they get caught in the future. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, and all that

I just wish they would be more honest with the public.

We, the public, are totally scunnered with it all. We are being continually locked down and it's destroying our economy, our jobs, our lives, and our livelihoods. These lockdowns cannot possibly be about protecting the NHS, nor can they be about protecting the majority of the population from a virus which has such a teeny weeny chance of killing them. 

We're fed up with those in authority forcing us in to these lockdowns. It's such a DISPROPORTIONATE action given how minuscule the danger is to the majority of the population.

Oh, and while I'm at it, we're also fed up with these restrictions being imposed on us by law

Since when did our Police become enforcers for the ideas and whims of politicians and scientists?



Sunday, 13 December 2020

Crown Office Worker Jailed

Katherine Vaughan, a Crown Office worker in Aberdeen, has been jailed for stealing £240,000 worth of evidence.

Over the years she stole heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, MDMA, cannabis, ketamine, mephedrone, diazepam, CCTV footage, audio tapes, DNA samples, confidential documents relating to prosecutions, passports, a stun gun, a locked safe, jewellery and bank statements.

Whew! 

However as regular readers know, I like to go beyond the headlines and look a little further in to these things.

So while this is a shocking story, there is something a whole lot more disgraceful about it - and it re-confirms what I have been saying for years.

The authorities cannot be trusted with our data.

The Crown Office prosecutor in the Katherine Vaughan case admitted that: "In spite of the best endeavours of the police, it remains unclear how she transported the productions from the office to her house".

This just beggars belief! 

So not only did this woman steal a ton of stuff from the Crown Office and was found guilty in a court of law for doing it, the keystone cops at Police Scotland and the clowns in the Crown office still don't have a scooby how she did it!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The old well-worn phrase that the police always trot out which says "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" is simply not true.

We, the public, may have nothing to hide but we've got plenty to fear...especially when the corrupt Crown Office and untrustworthy Police Scotland are the people in charge of keeping our data safe.

You couldn't make it up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-55092061




Thursday, 10 December 2020

NHS Workers £500 Bonus

The Scottish Government have announced that NHS workers will be given a £500 bonus for all the hard work they've done this year. 

On the surface this seems very admirable, very fair, very well deserved. 

But is it really? Let's look a little bit closer (please hear me out on this one). 

Unlike many people in this country, NHS workers have worked continuously in their jobs since March, during which they’ve earned 100% of their wages. More importantly, the majority of NHS workers do NOT work directly with virus patients so they are not at any more risk than any other member of the public in any other job. 

I absolutely don’t begrudge a £500 bonus to a doctor or a nurse or a porter or a cleaner or anyone who has spent the last 8 months decked out head to toe in PPE while going in and out of the ICU every day - these NHS workers have gone beyond the call of duty and I salute every single one of them. 

What I DO object to is a £500 bonus going to: 

NHS directors, assistant directors, governors, assistant governors, non executive directors, operational directors, clinical directors, pharmacy managers, care directors, medical trainers, R&D managers, innovation directors, revalidation managers, strategic clinical managers, quality issue directors, risk managers, health and safety directors, charity fund managers, clinical governance directors, auditors, commission and contracting directors, informatic and business intelligence managers, planning managers, insurance managers, “freedom to speak up guardians” (and no, I didn’t make that one up!), health and well being managers, equality and diversity managers, payroll staff, occupational health managers, staff engagement managers, performance tracking teams and their managers, and the heads of communication teams.

So I've got a better idea.


Do a survey. Ask every single NHS worker how many times, since March, they have donned full PPE and interacted with virus patients? 


I think you'll find that most of the NHS employees will answer “never”, because most work in admin areas, not on the front line.


Then you give a £500 bonus to the wonderful doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners etc who deserve it. And you give NOTHING to the others who have never been within a mile of a virus patient, especially those bureaucratic middle-management type leaches who suck up all the cash and squeeze the life out of the NHS. 


Tell them that they’re lucky to have a job, lucky to have been gainfully employed with 100% wages for the last 9 months while many other workers in our country have been left unemployed, penniless, and unable to feed their families


So will the Scottish Government give the £500 bonus ONLY to the workers in the NHS who deserve it?

No chance.

Because if you dare to criticise anything or anyone in the NHS or the Governments response to the dreaded Beijing Boak in any way these days, you’re labeled a conspiracy theorist who wants to kill granny, a piece of scum who doesn’t support all our brave wonderful NHS angels risking their lives to save us.

Meanwhile the fat-cats in the NHS continue to get fatter - at our expense. 



Tuesday, 8 December 2020

Government, Scientists, & The NHS

Do you get totally scunnered listening to the same old rubbish from our politicians?

I do.

Since day-one of this pandemic all I've heard them bleat on about is how "we’re listening to the scientists" and "we’re being guided by the science"?

Look, I didn’t elect a scientist to make decisions that affect my life. So I object when I see the politicians I elected taking orders from these scientists. Especially when the science being fed to us seems to be one-sided and biased (more about that later in this article).

I'm really not happy that my life and livelihood is being steered by so-called scientific ideas put forward by people like Professor Neil Ferguson, a man with a rich history of making absurd pandemic models from foot and mouth disease to swine flu.

So how did these scientists who make up in the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) become so powerful and influential? 

Why do our politicians seem to ignore the fact that many of these scientists have a long history of getting many of these things wrong in the past? 

Why do all of our politicians, even our Prime Minister, dance to their tune?

I have an answer to the above questions. There's a very disturbing story circulating from those 'in the know' explaining how this strange situation came about. I must warn you, it makes for very uncomfortable reading.

To understand the story, you need to understand the background. 

Most members of the public are unaware that the NHS Trusts and the scientists we see in committees such as SAGE are connected. And I mean VERY connected.

For example, did you know that Imperial College London - who have been advising the Governments SAGE committee - are connected to Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust who run FIVE hospitals: Charing Cross Hospital, Hammersmith Hospital, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, St Mary's Hospital and Western Eye Hospital? 

In 2019/20 Imperial College Healthcare had a turnover of £1.3 billion, employed approximately 13,000 people and treated about 1.3 million patients. 

The connections between the people who run our NHS hospitals and the medical scientific community are completely incestuous. They could be considered one and the same. There are 217 Trusts in the UK and they employ 800,000 of the 1.2 million NHS's staff.

The 'story' goes that back in March 2020 the NHS managers began to panic. They were in a panic that the virus looked like it was becoming a pandemic, and a pandemic would reveal what many of us have suspected for years - that most NHS hospitals are not fit for purpose and would be unable to cope with a pandemic. 

More importantly, they were terrified that a pandemic would mean increased scrutiny on the NHS and shine a spotlight on just how badly they've been running the NHS for years. They would be asked questions such as: why does the NHS cost us so much money yet when a nasty flu arrives, it can't cope? Why was the NHS not prepared for a pandemic? Where has all the money been going? 

The NHS is a big black hole where money just disappears. It's been like that for decades. Money gets swallowed up by layers and layers of management and fat-cat types who squeeze it dry with their bloated salaries and cushy contracts. If a pandemic was to hit, the spotlight would go on, the game would be up, and the NHS gravy train would grind to a halt. 

So, the NHS managers approached the Government. They told them that a pandemic was coming and the NHS was not prepared for it. They told them the NHS would not be able to cope with it and - this is the really important bit - threatened to blame it all on the Government for underfunding the NHS

They effectively blackmailed the Government. 

They insisted that if the Government didn't want to be blamed for the NHS's failure to cope with the pandemic, they must let the NHS managers run the pandemic response and call the shots. The NHS managers colleagues and cronies in the medical scientific community would step in to the SAGE committee and 'advise' the Government how to respond. The Government had no choice but to take this scientific advice or else. 

The completely co-ordinated responses to the pandemic we've seen from from the Government, the NHS managers, and the scientists makes sense now. And now we know why for the last 9 months they've pushed so forcefully for us to 'Protect the NHS' and 'Clap for Carers' etc.

The final sweetener for the Government was that if the Government were to come under fire from the public for getting anything wrong in their virus response, they could refer us to the scientists who would, in turn, blame an ever changing virus, blame the data, blame the modelling, or even blame the public for not doing what they advised. 

Just as an aside, scientists actually don't care a jot about criticism, it's water off a ducks back to them. They still keep their lucrative teaching jobs, their NHS trust jobs, and their Government research grants no matter what (just look at the criticism Professor Neil Ferguson has had over the years yet he still remains gainfully employed, he doesn't give a hoot)! 

So, with a pandemic on the way, Boris jumped at the chance and accepted the NHS managers deal. He didn’t have much choice politically - what politician wouldn't take a deal that absolves them of any blame should things go wrong, especially with something so big.

And that’s why it's scientists from SAGE, not politicians, who dictate to us whether we can leave our homes or not.

I’m always wary of any advice that comes from scientists, especially those who are closely connected to big sprawling inefficient organisations like the NHS and the Government. The professional and social connections that these scientists have with the NHS Trusts, the Government, the Universities, and big pharmaceutical companies is akin to a massive spiders web. The money involved is so colossal that the 'science' produced rarely emerges unbiased because these scientists usually have so many fingers in so many different pies. 

You really never know which way the wind is blowing with these people. 

Sometimes it's the scientists who call the shots and tell the Government what to do (which is what happened in the case of of the old Beijing Boak). 

Other times it's the Government calling the shots, luring scientists with massive research grants to ensure the 'outcome' suits the Governments agenda. 

Either way, the science that gets produced and the decisions taken based on that science always seems to fit perfectly with whatever they needed. How convenient!

I've seen it all happen before. 

I'm old enough to remember when Margaret Thatcher wanted to move the energy sector away from fossil fuels. The public were understandably wary of this change. Nobody wanted a nuclear power station on their doorstep. The miners didn't want to see the coal industry decimated and their communities destroyed. The steel workers were under threat too because the steel foundries were fossil fuel based. 

So Maggie paid the scientists to do research for her. She asked them to come up with something she could use to 'sell' her new energy policy of to the British public, something that would give her an excuse to get rid of fossil fuels. In reality she was secretly looking for an excuse to get rid of the trade-union loving coal miners and steel workers who's industries relied on fossil fuels. 

And Voila, 'Global Warming' was born.

I remember the 'Global Warming' era well. Some of you younger folks may not be familiar with the term 'Global Warming. It was enormously successful at destroying jobs, destroying families, destroying communities, and destroying peoples lives, especially in the poorest areas of the country. 

But you won't hear the term 'Global Warming' much nowadays. It kinda fell out of favour when people eventually tumbled to the fact that after years of warning us about Global Warming, Rothesay still wasn't getting as sunny as Benidorm! 

Too many awkward questions were being asked about 'Global Warming'. So they gave it a makeover and changed its name to...'Climate Change'. 

To this day you can’t get a teaching job in the scientific community, nor can you get funding for research projects in the public or private sector unless you agree to push the 'Climate Change' agenda. 

And that's why you see so many climate change loving politicians and activists trotting out well-worn phrases such as 'the science is settled' and 'all the scientists agree'. The science is NOT settled and all the scientists do NOT agree. It's just that any scientist who dares to offer a differing opinion about Global Warming or Climate Change gets excluded, ostracised, booted out, and silenced. 

It's a scandal, one of the biggest scandals of our time. 

We elect politicians to make decisions, not biased scientists.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like things are going to change any time soon. I suspect our politicians will continue to 'follow the science' no matter whether it's biased science, science they've been blackmailed in to taking, or just science they've invented themselves.

I hope that when the old Beijing Boak pandemic is finally over, maybe we'll be able to look back on it all and see who really made the decisions and why.

We may discover that this pandemic was never really about protecting the NHS, it was all about protecting a group of people much higher up the NHS ladder...



Monday, 7 December 2020

Scientists Or Activists?

Dr Anthony Fauci is not an idiot. 

He's a physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. He also heads the USA's virus team. 

So when the illustrious Dr Fauci says the UK have been sloppy over their decision to approve their vaccine so soon and states that we have cut corners, then we should listen to him, shouldn't we?

Actually, no, we shouldn't listen to him. We should totally ignore him.

Because Fauci is a political activist rather than a doctor. He's a disgrace to his profession.

How do we know this? 

Well, because after Fauci went on national TV and criticised how quickly the UK Government had approved the vaccine, the UK Government immediately called him up and gave him a real roasting for his false claims - and, surprise surprise, the very next day, the bold Fauci retracted his statement and trotted out the usual political excuse that he was taken out of context and misunderstood.

He wasn't taken out of context and he wasn't misunderstood. He knew exactly what he was saying. And he knew exactly that what he was saying was untrue.

The real reason Fauci criticised the UK's vaccine approval process was because he wanted to be first to approve a vaccine. 

Fauci has quite an ego it seems. 

It really doesn't get more disgusting than this. Think about it. A doctor who cares more about winning a popularity contest than saving human lives. 

Fauci, it would seem, appears quite happy to see Britons continue to die for a wee bit longer, just as long as he can win the race to get a vaccine approved before us. 

It's disgusting. Fauci is disgusting.

Full marks to Jeremy Vine who I'm not usually a fan of. He aired both Fauci clips on TV, the one where Fauci criticised the UK for bringing the vaccine out too soon, then the other one of him retracting his statement after a 'wee word' from the UK government.

However Fauci is not alone.

The European Union made similar claims last week. They stated that Britain hadn’t properly checked and read through all the relevant papers they should have checked before approving the vaccine. 

Just like Fauci, the EU's statement was untrue. 

Their reason for criticising the UK was similar to Fauci. The EU were being criticised by their own member states for taking too long to give the vaccine approval. No surprise there of course, the EU have two speeds, dead slow and stop. Instead of the EU admitting that they are so full of red-tape they're slower than a week in Barlinnie, they lied to try and justify their inefficiency. They pretended they were being more meticulous than the UK and that's why it was taking them so long. Despicable.

Yes folks, politicians don't mind trading human lives for popularity. Welcome to the murky world of politics.

Anyway, pretty much every country with a vaccine has now approved it, so let's move on and talk about the actual vaccines themselves. 

I have a couple of questions. Not criticisms, just questions. I'm as happy as anyone that a vaccine is now available. Here they are:

1. Why did all these various big pharmaceutical companies - all creating different vaccines - all announce their vaccines in the same week? Surely after working separately on vaccines for many months it's a bit co-incidental that they all announced vaccines within days of each other? What were the chances of that happening?

2. Why were all the various vaccines all over the world all approved within days of each other? Was this just another co-incidence? What are the chances of that happening?

3. The United States Presidential Election took place on the 3rd November 2020 and a vaccine was announced on the 9th November 2020, just 6 days AFTER the US election,  If a vaccine had been announced 6 days BEFORE the US election could that have changed the election result? Fauci and the EU - who are no fans of Trump - have already demonstrated to us that they consider a vaccine to be more important to them politically than saving human lives. So is the holding back of announcing a vaccine until after the US election something they would do? I'm only asking...

Fauci and the EU have both publicly bad-mouthed the UK. They purposely harmed us just so they can score political points. They wanted to be first in the race to approve a vaccine and they didn't care that their comments may have helped erode the British publics confidence in the vaccine. 

Their comments could well discourage people in the UK who urgently need this vaccine from taking it, and that's not good. It could ultimately cost British lives. 

But do these doctor-activists like Fauci and the EU white coats care? 

Nope, doesn't seem so. 

It’s the same old story, they don’t care about anyone or anything, as long as it suits their agenda and their ego.

Sunday, 6 December 2020

Lockdown, Phases 1,2,3,4, Circuit-Breakers, Tiered Systems, Level 1,2,3,4

So what restrictions are we in now?

Lockdown? 

Phase 1,2,3, or 4?

A Circuit-Breaker?

A Tiered System?

Level 1,2,3 or 4? 

Take your pick, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference really. 

They're all just buzzwords the government use to mean the same thing. 

Oh don’t you worry, the politicians will argue till the cows come home that each one of those terms is different but, well, when you’re stuck at home and can’t go out and about freely, then a lockdown, is a lockdown, is a lockdown.

So why do politicians ‘invent’ different words and terminology for the same bloody thing?

Oh that’s easy. 

It’s all about compliance.

If you tell the population to lockdown too many times, they’ll eventually get fed up and ignore your lockdown orders, it's just human nature. 

This especially holds true when you've told them that a short lockdown will cure the problem, then you extend the short lockdown to make it a longer lockdown. Then when that doesn’t cure the problem you introduce another lockdown to cure the problem your original lockdown didn't cure (while promising that this next lockdown will cure the problem). People understandably feel that if the first lockdown didn't do what you promised, then how will another one do it? And anyway, why should they ever trust anything you ever say again?

Phew!

So the politicians need to find another way to get around 'lockdown fatigue' if they want us to continue to comply with their orders.

And that's why they change the terminology. 

Politicians believe the public don’t notice when they use different words for the exact same thing. As far as politicians are concerned, the public are stupid. The public don't notice these things.

Or do they?

I see now that the politicians are bringing in 'behavioural psychologists' to advise them. They've realised that the public are not responding well to their restrictions any more and they need to find new ways to encourage the public to continue obeying their lockdown orders. Politicians are beginning to realise that the public are not quite as stupid as they first thought.

Changing terminology to manipulate the public isn’t anything new. Politicians have always twisted things around to suit their own agenda. 

Comedian George Carlin talked about the about the term ‘shell shock’ years ago. He pointed out how it was changed to ‘battle fatigue’, then it became ‘operational exhaustion’, and finally ended up as ‘post traumatic stress disorder’. Each name change removed its emotional impact and dehumanised it to the point where it just became a benign, nondescript medical term.

Take a look at the video below, it’s only a couple of minutes long.

Then let me know if you think we’re in a lockdown, a phase 1,2,3, or 4, a circuit-breaker, a tiered system, or level 1,2,3, or 4...



Saturday, 5 December 2020

Community Carers Abandoned During Covid-19

Incredible as it may sound to normal decent folks out there, carers in our community are being sent out on the front line, risking Covid-19, to take care of the most vulnerable in our society, but are then being abandoned without pay when they catch Covid-19 from doing that valuable work.

I have been contacted by a community care professional working in one of the Scottish council areas which is currently a hotbed for Covid-19. Her job entails visiting various vulnerable people with health issues in their own homes.
 
Earlier this month she tested positive for Covid-19, so she immediately informed her employer and dutifully isolated herself for 14 days.
 
But her employer has now informed her that they will NOT be paying her for the 14 days she had to isolate with Covid-19 and have further advised her that she is only entitled to the Scottish Governments Statutory Sick Pay of £94/week. 

She is now concerned about paying her rent, council tax, and other bills this month. Christmas for her and her family this year is looking VERY bleak. 

There is something seriously wrong when the Scottish Government are quite happy to put health professionals directly in harms way from Covid-19, yet drop them like a stone and refuse to support them in any meaningful way, forcing them in to hardship, when they become harmed by Covid-19.
 
It's quite sickening to watch the Scottish Government give other workers furlough payments of up to £2500/month to sit safely in their own homes, while health care professionals who we rely on to help us in this fight against Covid-19 get just £94/week thrown at them when they get ill. 

These are people who we are sending out in to the community, risking their own health and their families health, to care for the most vulnerable in our society. Yet we throw them absolute scraps of just £94/week when they catch Covid-19 from doing this essential job.
 
The Scottish Government should hang their heads in shame.

These health workers are already on low wages of just £9.25/hr. Most of them already live hand to mouth, from one pay cheque to the next. They have no option but to accept this horribly unfair treatment from the Scottish Government. 

Disgraceful.

By no stretch of the imagination can the Scottish Governments policy towards our care workers be viewed as being in any way conducive to combatting Covid-19 in our country. It's a well known fact throughout the care industry that many low paid care workers purposely do NOT use the Governments Protect Scotland app because they cannot afford for Protect Scotland to contact them and make them take 14 days off work!

Fortunately there are many decent and conscientious people working in our care industry and my source who contacted me is one of them. 

She did the right thing. She immediately stopped working and isolated when she tested positive for Covid-19. 

But now she is being penalised financially for it. 

The First Minister should answer the question of whether she thinks the Scottish Governments treatment of our community carers is FAIR.

It's a reasonable question, don't you think?

If you are as outraged as me about this situation, don't bother contacting Conservative leader Ruth Davidson or Labour's Richard Leonard to ask them to put this question to Nicola Sturgeon at the next First Minister's questions. 

I've already done that.

Conservative leader Ruth Davidson just told the poor carer she should apply for Government handouts (which she's not entitled to because you must be on benefits to get these). 

And as for Labour's Richard Leonard, well he didn't even have the decency to bother with a reply.

Friday, 4 December 2020

Fudging The Figures?

Is the Scottish Government fudging the figures?

Sometimes what a Government doesn't say can be just as important as what they do say.

For example, we know there are currently 279 hospitals in Scotland and 585 ICU beds available with mechanical ventilation.

Today, John Swinney from the Scottish Government presented the usual daily briefing (not sure where Nicola was, she doesn't seem to do Fridays any more, perhaps she likes a long weekend, who knows).

In the figures John Swinney presented today, he said that 965 people are currently in hospital with the virus.

But what he didn't say is that if you divide that figure of 965 by the number of hospitals in Scotland (279), the average number of people in hospital in Scotland with the virus right now is less than 4 people per hospital.

Next, he said that there are 65 people with the virus in ICU's today. 

Again, what he didn't say is this means that probably 214 hospitals in Scotland (77% of our hospitals) have NO patients in ICU with the virus today. 

Nor did he say that this also means only 12% of our ICU bed capacity for virus patients is currently being used today.

Let me be clear, I’m not trying to play down the seriousness of this virus, I’ve had it myself and it was pretty nasty, I couldn’t breathe properly for 2 days, and it was a scary time. I’m absolutely not a virus denier, nor am I anti-vax.

I’m just curious why the Scottish government are so keen to give us virus figures every day but don’t seem quite so keen to give us proper context to those figures?

Politicians will always present data in a way that suits their own political agenda and I'm fine with that, it's just politics. 

But this disease is different. The virus figures are vitally important to all of us. Lives and livelihoods are being lost every day due to the decisions our politicians are making. When you have a disease like this which is so severe that politicians are willing to destroy a whole economy because of it, it's not something insignificant. 

It's perfectly reasonable that we should expect full transparency and full explanations illustrating the proper context to the figures the Scottish government throw out at us each day. 

I love fudge, I just get wary when politicians try to sell it to me. 

Because when they do, the only thing that's usually been cooked is the books, and the only fudge you get in the end is their fudged figures.

Friday, 1 May 2020

Don't Let Social Unrest Become Rioting In The Streets

If you read my last post you'll know that I have been highly critical of the Government over their "Stay home" message.

We all know by now that the Beijing Boak is very contagious. It spreads from human to human with incredible ease, especially when people are in close proximity to each other. The risk of infection increases exponentially when people gather together. The more people gather, the greater the risk.

Pretty obvious that one.

So that's why I believe the Government message should have been "Don't gather" rather than "Stay home".

My reasoning is simple.

"Don't gather" would have stopped people from mixing together and being in contact with each other everywhere and anywhere, at work, at home, in the park, in the supermarket, everywhere. Period.

It would have achieved exactly the same goal as "Stay home" in stopping the spread of the disease from human to human, but it would've achieved it without forcing the public to be confined inside their homes, feeling like they're under some sort of house arrest in some kind of police-state.

My feeling has always been that you should be able to go out if you need to go out whether that be alone or with whoever you live with. Just don't gather with other people. Stay away from others, and if for any reason you need to be in close proximity to other people - like in a shop or walking along the street - then make sure you social-distance yourself by staying at least 6 feet away from them. Simple.

The Government could've easily achieved all the social-distancing necessary to fight the spread of this virus without putting their citizens under house arrest. It was a stupid move.

But it's not only the Government that I've been very critical of.

I've been particularly critical of the police and their behaviour throughout all of this too. They really haven't helped the situation.

Within minutes of police being handed their new "Stay home" powers from their political masters, they began to abuse those powers by sneakily taking the words "Stay home" to mean literally just that. They fined, charged, and arrested citizens for such heinous crimes as sitting on a park bench alone or walking their dog in an empty field miles away from anywhere and anyone.

Many good, decent members of the public - properly practicing responsible and safe social-distancing - went out for a walk, or to the park, or to the supermarket, only to find themselves approached and collared by over-zealous coppers just itching to get their flagging crime figures back up.

Which brings us to where we are today.

As we fast approach our 6th week of being confined to our homes, the Government are about to make another important decision next week about whether to continue with the "Stay home" lockdown or begin to ease it.

This should be a simple enough decision. If the threat of infection is still high, then the lockdown should continue. But if the threat has reduced and the virus is subsiding then they should begin to relax the lockdown.

But unfortunately it's not as simple as that.

You see, my fear is that before they make this decision next week, the police and our politicians may fail to reflect on, seriously mis-read, or maybe just won't care how we, the public, have come to perceive the lockdown they've imposed on us thus far.

Because my research shows that many members of the public are extremely unhappy with the heavy-handed way both the Government and especially our police have been handling the lockdown up till now.

Many members of the public feel that had the police not been so heavy-handed and abused their powers so shamelessly over the "Stay home" order, the public would actually have been quite sympathetic to a further period of lockdown.

If the politicians hadn't been so arrogant in ordering the public to go under what many feel is nothing short of house arrest while using the police as their political enforcers - the very definition of a police state if ever there was one - the public would probably be much more receptive to the idea of a further period of lockdown.

I worry that all these things may have lead to a perception among increasing numbers of members of the public that maybe, just maybe, there has been an ulterior motive to the lockdown. If increasing numbers of citizens begin to think that the Government - helped by their police enforcers - may be using public fear over the Beijing Boak to strip away their civil liberties via the back door, we have a problem. A big problem.

Reports of makeshift hospitals around the country being built inside places like conference centres but then left relatively unused while police go around fining parents for letting their children play out in the front garden haven't helped the public's increasing distrust of the official narrative.

And that's why I'm worried. I'm worried that Government overreach and police mishandling of the lockdown thus far may have just sown enough seeds of mistrust and discontent in the eyes of an otherwise law-abiding public that it could boil over and become a serious threat to the stability of our society.

Please don't think I'm overreacting.

It's already happening in the United States right now.

In the State of Michigan, a group of citizens - many of them armed - are protesting against lockdown and they have actually entered inside the Capitol building (see HERE). They believe that the Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has abused her powers and is eroding their constitutional and civil rights.

During lockdown the Governor said, for example, it's ok for you to get an abortion and buy alcohol, but you can't buy paint or grass seed from your local DIY store (*note- abortion is a very emotive and massive political issue in the US).

The protesters feel that buying a tin of paint from your local DIY Store while properly socially-distancing - which is currently NOT allowed - is no different to buying alcohol from your local Liquor Store - which currently IS allowed - and that these things don't really have anything to do with the virus. They have a point.

The problem the Governor faces now is, if she sends the police in to disperse or arrest the protesters, then she opens up a whole can of worms as to who the police actually work for and who they have a duty to represent and protect. Is it the citizens of the State of Michigan, or is it the Governor, Ms Whitmer, a 'here today, gone tomorrow' politician who has put Michigan citizens under house arrest and ordered them to comply with things which suit her own political ideals?

To the protesters, it sure looks like she's using the virus as an excuse to get the police to crack down on anyone who disagrees with her political positions. She argues she's just trying to save lives. Who knows. What a mess!

Here in the UK, I believe that if our Government and police had been reasonable with the public throughout the lockdown thus far, then the public would have, without question, reacted positively to any further extension of the lockdown.

But the way things are right now, I worry that our police and Government may have already stupidly caused the public's focus to shift away from the virus and many members of the public are now questioning whether it's really all about the virus or just an excuse to introduce a police state and steal our civil liberties.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe in any of the wild and dangerous conspiracy theories about the virus that are out there. I personally believe that the threat is very real and I am delighted that my fellow members of the public have responded, as I have, so responsibly and seriously to the threat this disease presents. It has made me proud to watch so many of my fellow members of the public practicing social distancing so conscientiously.

But after nearly 6 weeks of lockdown it's perfectly understandable that a few folks may be getting a bit irritable, disheartened, and even skeptical, and that's ok. Most people love their family dearly, but the frustration of being under virtual house arrest and living under the same roof with them 24 hours a day will surely have taken its toll on many otherwise good, decent, and tolerant people.

Add to that the worry and uncertainty of losing their job, wondering how they'll feed their family, maybe even losing their home with still no end in sight to the lockdown yet, and you can see that this has put a huge amount of pressure on a large portion of our population.

So it's not difficult to see that these worries and frustrations could very easily boil over.

Don't get me wrong, social unrest can be a good thing. The right to peaceful protest is essential in a democracy. It allows the public to vent their anger and frustrations, peacefully of course, at those in power and, consequently, alerts the 'powers that be' that their actions are not hitting the spot. It warns the 'powers that be' that the public are looking to them to change course and that they need to act for the good of the public or there will be consequences.

All of this is ok.

But when social unrest and peaceful protest boils over and turns in to violence, looting, and rioting in the streets, things get ugly very quickly.

Let me be blunt. Over-zealous jobsworths in the police - empowered and egged on by stupid arrogant politicians - have failed us during this pandemic.

They could so easily of had the public on their side, but they blew it with their egotistical and heavy-handed treatment of the public. The public were more than willing to trust them and help them, in the beginning at least, in our common fight against this virus.

If the police had just treated the public correctly, the only dissent they would've heard would've been from a few fed up people moaning and groaning about having to endure another couple of weeks of lockdown after they've already had to put up with 6 weeks of it. But even those moaners and groaners would've at least had some trust in the police and the Government that everything is being done for the right reasons.

But the Government, and especially the police, have NOT treated the public well during this lockdown.

They have eroded so much public confidence in the last couple of months, I fear that any little bits of social unrest and the odd protest here and there could easily spill over to full scale violence, looting, and rioting in the streets if we're not careful.

And if it does, the police and politicians will only have themselves to blame.

Monday, 27 April 2020

Sending The Wrong Message

The public get it. We're not stupid.

The Beijing Boak is a particularly nasty virus. It's very contagious.

Not only do we fully understand that this disease is nasty and contagious, we also realise that you can have this virus for a number of days without showing any symptoms. In many cases you don't even know you've got it.

Which means if you gather around other people - even in small groups for the smallest amount of time - there's a good chance you could contract the virus. Or if you've already got it, pass it on to someone else.

It's not rocket science, the public get it, honestly we do.

We also get why many countries around the world - including ours - made the bold and difficult decision to put their citizens in to lockdown.

So far, so good.

But what doesn't make sense is the Governments message throughout all of this.

In particular, I'm referring to their often repeated "Stay home" message which we have been bombarded with since day-one (a message which, unsurprisingly, our untrustworthy police have been super keen to enforce, but more about that later in the article).

Surely a "Don't gather" message would've made more sense and been much easier to implement.

Most people I speak to agree that the "Stay home" message has been a miserable failure, mainly because it comes with a ton of exceptions. In fact there are so many exceptions to the rule, the rule has become virtually impossible to implement.

You see, the "Stay home" message came with a list as long as your arm of circumstances where you DIDN'T need to stay home, for example essential workers, walking your dog, going out for some exercise, going to the supermarket, the list goes on.

It should've been pretty obvious to our politicians from the beginning that if police were to encounter someone out and about who was flouting the "Stay home" order, all that person needed to do was use one of the exceptions to the rule and tell police "I'm exercising" or "I'm going to the supermarket".

In addition to this, politicians should have anticipated that the "Stay home" message was never going to resonate well with the general public. 

To decent folks, it was always going to smell a bit like being under house arrest in a police-state while they watch rogues finding ways to get around it.

In short, this was never going to be easy to implement properly.

Only the most stupid politicians in the world would seriously believe that ordering people to "Stay home" while trotting out a laundry list of circumstances where it was ok for them NOT to stay at home would be effective.

We have some seriously stupid politicians.

I believe a "Don't gather" message would have achieved their goal of keeping people apart in a much better way. It would have been far more palatable, more effective, and much easier to implement.

Because the phrase "Don't gather" says it all.

It means don't gather at home with friends or neighbours, don't have visitors round, don't have house parties, don't gather in public places like parks, don't gather with other dog walkers - the list goes on, you get the idea.

And if you do find yourself in a situation where people could possibly be gathering a bit closer together than you feel is safe - a petrol station, a shop, or a supermarket for example - then keep yourself at least 6 feet apart from others. Social distance yourself.

This would have helped prevent all the stories we're now hearing with alarming regularity of jobsworth police officers hassling members of the public and ordering them to go home even though the person is out alone, social distancing, with no one else around for as far as the eye can see.

People who are out alone are by the very nature of being alone practicing social-distancing! These types of people should be congratulated for being socially responsible, not ordered home, fined or arrested by numpty coppers.

But unfortunately we didn't get a "Don't gather" order, we got a "Stay home" order. And needless to say, our police jumped up and down with joy the very minute those stupid politicians handed them the carte-blanche authority to go wag their finger at every stray cat walking down the street without permission.

Because the police absolutely love it when they get handed new powers.

Sadly it doesn't take long for them to abuse those powers.

And abuse them they did.

Within days the Government were forced to slap down the police for overreaching with their new powers (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52245937). 

Turns out many of our half-wit police officers immediately decided that the best way to police our communities was to walk up and down supermarket aisles handing out fines to the public for such heinous crimes as putting "non-essential" goods in their basket.

One Chief Constable even suggested he would introduce roadblocks and search people's shopping in the boot of their car. No doubt in case any of his officers in the aisles of Asda had missed the odd pot noodle.

I'll refrain from making the obvious joke about the police being a bunch of baskets who are off their trolleys (oops, I think I just did)!

Anyway, the Home Secretary Priti Patel was forced to announce that it was "not appropriate" for police to be checking people's supermarket trolleys. Police should NOT check your shopping basket and have no power to tell you what you can and can’t buy in the supermarket.

But the police took no notice and continued.

So the government had to go a step further and announce that the public can buy anything they like from shops that are open. If they stock it, you can buy it. The police do not have the power to say which supermarket goods are essential or non essential.

And so the new, amended, Government message we then got was "Stay home, unless you're using one of the many reasons, excuses, and exceptions we gave you not to stay home, including but not limited to the buying of essential and non essential items from the supermarket in front of a police officer who we've now advised is no longer allowed to look in your basket, stop you buying it, or fine you for it".

What a disaster!

The police, of course, helped cause this disaster because as per usual they pounced on their new powers and immediately started to twist them around to suit their age-old agenda which is to get as many fines, charges, and arrests as possible against otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Police are lazy, they will always go for the low-hanging fruit. It used to be the poor motorist who got fleeced by police slapping petty fines on him. Now shoppers in supermarket aisles have become their new target.

Police will resort to doing anything, as long as it's easier than chasing hardened criminals like burglars, rapists, and murderers.

So to summarise, while really bad criminals are roaming around freely out there, the public can be confident that our wonderful boys and girls in blue are busy doing absolutely sterling police work such as looking in to peoples shopping baskets, telling a family that their kids can't play in their own front garden, stopping you buying Easter eggs (because they're "non essential" items), arresting a girl for sitting alone on a park bench in a completely deserted park, fining someone for buying two bottles of wine from his local off-licence, threatening a member of the public for walking his dog, alone, in a rural area with no one else around for miles...ad nauseam. The police are a disgrace.

Yet all this could've been avoided had the Government issued a very simple 'Don't gather" message instead of the stupid and impossible to implement "Stay home" message with its ridiculous number of exceptions and its backdoor loophole allowing corrupt police to purposely misinterpret it.

The issue was never about people going out for a walk, or going shopping, or exercising, or walking the dog, or sitting on a park bench by themselves. The issue was about people gathering with others when out for a walk, gathering with others in the supermarket, gathering with other dog walkers, gathering with others on park benches.

People gathering together in close proximity and spreading the infection was the problem, so a "Don't gather" message would have been far more effective.

The public are not stupid. Everywhere I go, I see social-distancing being faithfully practiced. Outside supermarkets there are queues halfway around the block waiting to get in, and when you do get inside, I see customers being respectful to each other by staying a few feet away from each other in the aisles. It's genuinely heartwarming to see people taking this so seriously.

The public are smart. They know how to venture outside of their home while still social-distancing themselves from others. The "Stay home" order insulted the intelligence of the public and treated them like imbeciles.

"Don't gather" would have been a better message. Everyone knows what "Don't gather" means. It means don't go near others who could infect you with the old Beijing Boak and vice-versa. It means stay away from others, no matter whether you're at home or outside.

It's a simple instruction, it covers everywhere and anywhere a person could possibly be at any time, it makes perfect sense, and unlike the "Stay home" message it doesn't involve a plethora of exceptions to the rule that defeat its purpose. It doesn't make people feel they're living under house arrest in a police-state.

And just as importantly, a simple "Don't gather" message makes it much harder for corrupt and untrustworthy police to twist and use it to suit their own agenda of making criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens to falsify their figures.

Friday, 3 April 2020

Police Scotland Abuse New Powers

Shock, horror, surprise!

Police Scotland were given "extra" powers by the Government to crackdown on citizens who break social-distancing guidelines during the Beijing Boak outbreak. And guess what?

Untrustworthy Police Scotland immediately began to abuse those powers.

This is the most predictable story imaginable. I could've easily written this before it happened.

You see Police Scotland are always asking the Government for more powers. It's what they do. And it doesn't matter whether it's during times of crisis, panic, pandemics, or peace and calm. They just want more power, period.

The reason is simple.

Police Scotland no longer exist to help, serve, and protect the Scottish public. They haven't done that for a long number of years.

Instead Police Scotland exist to target the Scottish public.

Their job - as they see it - is to arrest as many people as possible so that they can achieve high arrest figures. In their corrupt world, they think that arresting lots of members of the public proves to the wider public what a great job they're doing keeping us all safe (yawn).

It doesn't phase them one bit that by doing this, they are unnecessarily making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding, innocent members of the public .

The fact that otherwise good and decent people who didn't know the back brake light on their car was faulty are now branded criminals. These are a large section of the public who will never ever lift a finger again to help police. Incredulously, the police moan and complain that the public are not assisting them when they need them!

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

So here we are within days - if not hours - of new powers being bestowed on Her Majesty's finest and our corrupt boys in blue are out there abusing those powers already.

Who'd have thunk it.

And it's not just in Scotland that police are abusing their powers. Police the whole of the UK over are, well, doing what police everywhere do. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.

But don't just take my word for it.

The Minister for Transport Grant Shapps accused officers of being "heavy-handed".

Lord Sumption - the former supreme court justice - called police "disgraceful" over the way they have been handling the new powers.

Further still, he said that "The tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform, they are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government’s command. This is what a police state is like. It’s a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers’ wishes."

On top of all this, we're hearing stories of police trying to fine members of the public for walking alone in rural areas where they are in contact with NO other human beings (the absolute pinnacle of responsible social-distancing). They even poured black dye in to a lake to put people off swimming in it.

There are other stories about officers telling shops not to stock Easter eggs because they are a "non-essential" item (*Editors Note - I'm not really sure whether I would consider an Easter egg to be classed as an essential item or not, but what I most certainly DO know is that police do NOT have the right to decide whether it is or not).

I have commented many times before on this blog about how the police ALWAYS want more powers but when they get those powers they ALWAYS abuse them. 

Always.

So, to use an old worn out cliche, here we go again.

And these idiots in a uniform wonder why the public don't respect or help police officers any more (sigh)