Mr Tolley concluded that I had not once, in four and a half years, sworn or shouted at anyone, let alone thrown anything or otherwise physically intimidated anyone, nor intentionally sought to belittle anyone. I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt, as a result of the pace, standards and challenge that I brought to the Ministry of Justice. That is, however, what the public expect of Ministers working on their behalf.
Archiv: Spectator (media)
Emmanuel Macron: Franceâs Caligula?
Instead, on Macronâs orders, Prime Minister Ălisabeth Borne used a controversial clause in the Constitution, Article 49.3, to pass the bill.
The Republican Party are widely supportive of Macronâs reform bill, which raises the age of retirement from sixty-two to sixty-four, and issued instructions for its sixty-one Members of Parliament to vote against the motion. But nineteen of its MPs defied orders, adding to the dissent and disorder which has swept France in recent days, in parliament and on the street.
Why did Facebook reject The Spectatorâs Joe Biden cover?
Why was The Spectator being hauled up under a technical FB rule applying to political adverts? As a news organisation, we thought we were exempt from such rules.
The lockdown files: Rishi Sunak on what we werenât told
(27 August 2022)
Lockdown â closing schools and much of the economy while sending the police after people who sat on park benches â was the most draconian policy introduced in peacetime. No. 10 wanted to present it as âfollowing the scienceâ rather than a political decision, and this had implications for the wiring of government decision-making. It meant elevating Sage, a sprawling group of scientific advisers, into a committee that had the power to decide whether the country would lock down or not. There was no socioeconomic equivalent to Sage; no forum where other questions would be asked.
So whoever wrote the minutes for the Sage meetings â condensing its discussions into guidance for government â would set the policy of the nation. No one, not even cabinet members, would know how these decisions were reached.
Why didnât more people resist lockdown?
As it will take years for culpable parties to retire, I once feared that a full generation would need to elapse before we recognised lockdowns for what they were: the biggest public health debacle in history. Yet everywhere I turn lately, still another journalist is decrying the avoidable social, medical and economic costs of this hysterical over-reaction to a virus, while deriding lockdown zealots for having vilified sceptics of a policy that may well end up killing more people than it protected. The Covid revisionism is welcome â though itâs a good deal easier to publish these opinion pieces now than it was two years ago, and I speak from experience.
The lockdown files: Rishi Sunak on what we werenât told
(27 August 2022)
Lockdown â closing schools and much of the economy while sending the police after people who sat on park benches â was the most draconian policy introduced in peacetime. No. 10 wanted to present it as âfollowing the scienceâ rather than a political decision, and this had implications for the wiring of government decision-making. It meant elevating Sage, a sprawling group of scientific advisers, into a committee that had the power to decide whether the country would lock down or not. There was no socioeconomic equivalent to Sage; no forum where other questions would be asked.
So whoever wrote the minutes for the Sage meetings â condensing its discussions into guidance for government â would set the policy of the nation. No one, not even cabinet members, would know how these decisions were reached.
Empowering Sage scientists over Covid lockdown left us âscrewedâ, claims Sunak
The meetings were âliterally me around that table, just fightingâ, which âwas incredibly uncomfortable every single timeâ.
At one meeting he raised the impact on childrenâs education: âI was very emotional about it. I was like, âForget about the economy. Surely we can all agree that kids not being in school is a major nightmareâ, or something like that.
âThere was a big silence afterwards. It was the first time someone had said it. I was so furious.â
Setting out the problems he found with Government policy being influenced by outside academics, he said: âIf you empower all these independent people, youâre screwed.â
Rishi Sunak says he wasn‘t ‚allowed to talk about the side effects of lockdown‘ during the pandemic
Mr Sunak said one of the Governmentâs biggest mistakes was giving too much power to scientists and claimed the Governmentâs Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) edited its minutes to hide dissenting opinions.
The former chancellor made the statements in an interview with the Spectator magazine.
âWe shouldnât have empowered the scientists in the way we did,â he is quoted as saying.
GroĂbritannien â mehr Tote durch Lockdowns als durch Corona?
In GroĂbritannien findet momentan eine bemerkenswerte Diskussion ĂŒber die vergangenen Lockdown-MaĂnahmen statt. Einer der beiden konservativen Regierungschef-Kandidaten, der bisherige britische Finanzminister Rishi Sunak, hat diese Diskussion vor wenigen Tagen dramatisch intensiviert. Der staatliche Nachrichtensender BBC berichtete am 25.8.2022[1] ĂŒber die Aussagen von Rishi Sunak gegenĂŒber der Zeitschrift âThe Spectatorâ: Ministern sei es untersagt worden, ĂŒber KollateralschĂ€den (trade-offs) der Lockdowns zu diskutieren[2]; es sei falsch gewesen, eine staatliche Angstkampagne zu fahren. Das Regierungs-âScriptâ sei ein ungerechtfertigtes Angst-Narrativ gewesen (âthe fear narrativeâ). Die vorgegebene Leitlinie sei gewesen: âEs gibt keine negativen Auswirkungenâ.[3] Interne Kritik in dem wissenschaftlichen Beratungsgremium (SAGE) sei nicht veröffentlicht worden.
The way âCovid deathsâ are being counted is a national scandal
(30.05.2020)
Normally, two doctors are needed to certify a death, one of whom has been treating the patient or who knows them and has seen them recently. That has changed. For Covid-19 only, the certification can be made by a single doctor, and there is no requirement for them to have examined, or even met, the patient. A video-link consultation in the four weeks prior to death is now felt to be sufficient for death to be attributed to Covid-19.