Some stranded Brits have been really stupid

[StuartO]

There was a news story recently about a woman in Bali who was stuck there because there were no flights, wanting the FCO to organise a rescue because she was due to start chemo or some such. But she had flown to Bali in early March, we’ll after it was obviously dangerous to do so, presumably because the family holiday was paid for and hadn’t been cancelled by the tour provider. 

And there are backpacker young (and older) tourists popping up all over the place who seem to have carried on regardless as the coronavirus pandemic escalated and are now wanting rescue by the British Government. There were a group in Goa on the news this morning composing that all they were being fed in their hotel was one bowl of rice and potatoes each day. 

Do we, the tax payer, pay lots of money and put aircrew at risk to rescue all refugee Brits, no matter how self-inflicted their situation might be?

[Violet1956]

I have no problem with requiring the repatriated at taxpayers’ expense to pay back the cost of their rescue whether or not they were reckless in going in the first place. First port of call should be their insurers. If they didn’t have insurance then TT, even if it means they have to pay by instalments. As for aircrew any service they provide should be voluntary.

[Bulletguy]

 

If she was due to start chemo then i'd question the wisdom of her flight out in the first place, especially at the time you indicate. At best, extremely foolhardy, at worst downright selfish. As Veronica mentioned, insurance must cover costs....that's assuming she told them which is probably doubtful. She could well find her cover voided if she failed to disclose her medical conditions.

 

It's not a tax-payer problem imo.

[Birdbrain]

How strange ... Happy to rescue , house , feed and give health care all for free at tax payers expense to asylum seekers without question yet when British subjects need to return home they are in the wrong ... Lordy My

[StuartO]

Bulletguy - 2020-03-28 3:41 PM...... if she failed to disclose her medical conditions.It's not a tax-payer problem imo.

But the expectation seems to have arisen, because the Government have been guarteeing allsorts to allsorts recently, that the Government is everyone's insurer of last resort, including special flights home when necessary.  The "normal" thing when the FCO bail someone out abroad is that they do have to agree to repay what they are loaned to cover repatriation costs but since coronavirus started, the FCO have been organising (and paying for) special flights and thereby a precedent seems to have been set.

On the other hand the insurance companies seem to be playing hardball and not paying out willingly, even for perfectly valid claims.  That was certainly our experience when we cancelled a cruise (with no certainty of any refund at all) at the beginning of February.  It was probably the threat of the Package Travel Regulations which caused the cruise line to change their mind and make a refund.  Our insurers also refused what seemed to me to be a valid claim making silly excuses, such as "Shanghai is not part of Mainland China" and "we would only pay pro-rata for missing one port" (of which o mention in the policy document) but later changed their minds - or rather had their minds changed for them by Nationwide, under whose flag they were insuring.

There are still a large number oof Brits abroad now wanting to get back for all sorts of reasons, some of whom may well have been put under pressure by host governments or cancellation of all flights and some will be deserving of help.  For example the EU's hallowed freedom of movement seems to have  been tossed ot of the window by the acts of individual EU Member Nations recently.

But some Brit refugees have been stubborn and/or foolish and their current situation of of their own making. Does the UK owe them all cost-free repatriation, which is what many of them seem to think?

[Brian Kirby]

They may think what they wish. The British government has seldom previously repatriated people from abroad without seeking to recover at least part of the cost. Some will have acted foolishly, and some insurers will be justified in rejecting claims where the insured has acted foolishly - for example by knowingly travelling to countries subject to an outbreak of Covid-19.

 

It seems somewhat pointless railing about anyone's behaviour, be they traveller, insurer, or government, in the absence of knowledge of the actual circumstances. People are quite good a "spinning" their circumstances for maximum sympathy, so a little investigation by those being asked to cough (sorry! :-)) up seems to me reasonable.

 

Get them home first, by the most practical means, and then settle the bill once they are repatriated, seems the most sensible course to me. Then their circumstances can be assessed. If people are to be reimbursed for their loss of earnings on the basis, as the government has said, that Covid-19 was not their fault, it seems to me reasonable to take the same attitude to those who have unexpectedly, or unforeseeably, found themselves in affected countries with closed borders. Others, including those with no insurance, or who have withheld relevant information from their insurer, should pay.

 

Borders within the EU have been temporarily closed by some states because people were border hopping to get away from areas where the virus was spreading, so increasing its prevalence in the countries to which they fled. No-one has ever had an inviolable right to freedom of movement, refusal of entry on grounds of public health (among other reasons) is provided for within the Schengen treaty. What else should they do? Negligently acquiesce in the spread of the virus?

[Bulletguy]

Stuart

 

I'm staggered at anyone foolish enough to even contemplate travel to another country particularly at the time you say she did. Those that exited UK way before Covid-19 became known, ok i can understand that though some stubbornly refused to budge until the bitter end. They may well be bringing more than just their baggage back with them. As Brian said, they can think whatever they want but repatriation isn't a free passage and will have to claim from their insurance.....IF they have any and IF it's not been voided by the policyholders deceit.

 

Each individual EU and non-EU country has a duty of care to its resident citizens which will include some British immigrants. That country, be it Spain, Switzerland, Norway etc is where they live...they don''t live in UK. As most of the world, let alone Europe, is now in lockdown they stay in their country of residence in order for containment so it's certainly not an 'EU thing' and nothing to do with 'FoM'.

[jumpstart]

I would take issue with the time scale here. We booked to go hiking in Mallorca on 20th Feb. There was no big issue with doing this. At the beginning of March there were Covac19 cases in Europe but no suggestion of people cancelling holidays. By the 10th March there were multiple cases in Italy and Spain but none in Mallorca. We decided at that point that it could prove difficult if it all kicked off whilst we were away so postponed it. At that point there was no foreign office directive to avoid travel.It is really in the last two weeks it all went ballistic. It would not have been obviously dangerous for this woman to go at the beginning of March.

[StuartO]

jumpstart - 2020-03-28 9:16 PMI would take issue with the time scale here. We booked to go hiking in Mallorca on 20th Feb. There was no big issue with doing this. At the beginning of March there were Covac19 cases in Europe but no suggestion of people cancelling holidays. By the 10th March there were multiple cases in Italy and Spain but none in Mallorca. We decided at that point that it could prove difficult if it all kicked off whilst we were away so postponed it. At that point there was no foreign office directive to avoid travel.It is really in the last two weeks it all went ballistic. It would not have been obviously dangerous for this woman to go at the beginning of March.

I remember you saying that you we’re still planning on going to Majorca when it seemed to me that you must be in some sort of denial. We abandoned our holiday plans on February 4th. Bono declared his action plan on TV on March 4th. 

[Birdbrain]

jumpstart - 2020-03-28 9:16 PM

 

I would take issue with the time scale here. We booked to go hiking in Mallorca on 20th Feb. There was no big issue with doing this. At the beginning of March there were Covac19 cases in Europe but no suggestion of people cancelling holidays. By the 10th March there were multiple cases in Italy and Spain but none in Mallorca. We decided at that point that it could prove difficult if it all kicked off whilst we were away so postponed it. At that point there was no foreign office directive to avoid travel.It is really in the last two weeks it all went ballistic. It would not have been obviously dangerous for this woman to go at the beginning of March.

 

For once I agree with you ... Basically those questioning it are saying its their fault and they made some daft decisions to go ... Wonder if they'd say the same about the Mcanns who did the same in leaving their children all alone in that holiday apartment , do they want the Mcanns to repay the millions and millions spent hunting for their child ???

[StuartO]

Birdbrain - 2020-03-29 7:51 AM For once I agree with you [jumpstart]... Basically those questioning it are saying its their fault and they made some daft decisions to go ... Wonder if they'd say the same about the Mcanns who did the same in leaving their children all alone in that holiday apartment , do they want the Mcanns to repay the millions and millions spent hunting for their child ???

Surely you aren't saying that the Government (i.e. eventually the taxpayer) should pay up everytime anyone makes an understandable mistake which has financial consequences?  Don't people have any responsibility to clear up their self-made messes in life?

The McCanns have of course been paying big time in emotional, mental health and all sorts of other ways for their mistake in leaving their daughter unattended in Portugal.  UK police have investigated the crime of course (at taxpayer's expense) but I'm not sure the McCanns have ever received any taxpayer's money.

[Birdbrain]

StuartO - 2020-03-29 9:06 AM

Birdbrain - 2020-03-29 7:51 AM For once I agree with you [jumpstart]... Basically those questioning it are saying its their fault and they made some daft decisions to go ... Wonder if they'd say the same about the Mcanns who did the same in leaving their children all alone in that holiday apartment , do they want the Mcanns to repay the millions and millions spent hunting for their child ???

Surely you aren't saying that the Government (i.e. eventually the taxpayer) should pay up everytime anyone makes an understandable mistake which has financial consequences?  Don't people have any responsibility to clear up their self-made messes in life?

The McCanns have of course been paying big time in emotional, mental health and all sorts of other ways for their mistake in leaving their daughter unattended in Portugal.  UK police have investigated the crime of course (at taxpayer's expense) but I'm not sure the McCanns have ever received any taxpayer's money.

How much do smokers cost the tax payer each year through NHS treatment despite all the warnings , those with an unhealthy diet or lifestyle , drinkers who receive treatment due to booze despite all the warnings , women with abusive partners warned time and again about those abusive partners yet they stay with them and receive NHS treatment , legal expenses and possible prison time for their partners would all be at tax payers expense , those who aren't taking Government advice now who might catch the China Virus due to their stupidity who would need NHS treatment would you have all those pay money back or is it just Brits stuck abroad ???

[jumpstart]

StuartO - 2020-03-29 9:06 AM

Birdbrain - 2020-03-29 7:51 AM For once I agree with you [jumpstart]... Basically those questioning it are saying its their fault and they made some daft decisions to go ... Wonder if they'd say the same about the Mcanns who did the same in leaving their children all alone in that holiday apartment , do they want the Mcanns to repay the millions and millions spent hunting for their child ???

Surely you aren't saying that the Government (i.e. eventually the taxpayer) should pay up everytime anyone makes an understandable mistake which has financial consequences?  Don't people have any responsibility to clear up their self-made messes in life?>

There are many destinations where there are only a couple of flights a week. It may be that once those flights have been cancelled by the airlines, there will be problems getting back outside the control of the passengers.

[StuartO]

I’m not saying that there is any clear answer to the dilemmas, just pointing out that expectations have now arisen which will encourage irresponsible behaviour in the future. 

[Brian Kirby]

Birdbrain - 2020-03-29 9:40 AM...……………………...

How much do smokers cost the tax payer each year through NHS treatment despite all the warnings , those with an unhealthy diet or lifestyle , drinkers who receive treatment due to booze despite all the warnings , women with abusive partners warned time and again about those abusive partners yet they stay with them and receive NHS treatment , legal expenses and possible prison time for their partners would all be at tax payers expense , those who aren't taking Government advice now who might catch the China Virus due to their stupidity who would need NHS treatment would you have all those pay money back or is it just Brits stuck abroad ???

I think you're mostly arguing for the sake of argument! :-) But OK, it's boring being at home, so why not?

 

There are risks, and there are risks.

 

Take smokers. Smoking has been around for a very long time See here: https://tinyurl.com/pqf892c ). Following its introduction to Europe (16 C) and the USA (17 C), smoking was promoted by the tobacco companies with the full indulgence of the authorities. When the linkage between smoking and lung cancer was first mooted, by Dr Richard Doll, in 1949, most rejected his findings as the work of an obsessive. Some still do, despite the evidence. But, the government finds it more convenient to take the tax revenues they gain than to simply ban the sale of smoking tobacco in all its forms. So should the tax taker forego the revenues, ban smoking, and put up taxes to compensate? Probably. So should smokers therefore pay for their treatment? Most could not afford it, so what of them? Some would say that if the government taxes tobacco: it is, in effect, sanctioning its use, so the state should bear the cost of the illnesses it brings. Others would say they pay enough through tobacco tax to justify NHS treatment. We live in a democracy.

 

Much the same can be argued for alcohol.

 

In the case of domestic abuse, where a woman refuses, for whichever of the many reasons put forward, to leave her abusive partner, which women should be supported, and which abandoned to their fate? Should those with independent means be treated differently to those who are dependent on their abuser for their, and their children's, home and sustenance? In simple terms, it is the abuser who should pay, but some, even when ordered to permanently leave the home and not go near it, while having the cost of supporting their family deducted from their earnings, ignore the restraining orders and contrive to lose their pay out of obsessive spite. So what then? Who then should support the abused?

 

So, Covid-19? Those "who aren't taking Government advice now who might catch the China (sic) Virus due to their stupidity who would need NHS treatment would you have all those pay money back or is it just Brits stuck abroad" needs a little unpacking.

 

For example, which government advice should they have followed? The early advice that we needed to develop "herd" immunity (implying that the sooner we all got the virus the quicker it would all be over), or the later advice that we should "socially distance" from others, or the most recent advice that we should all stay at home - with decremental exceptions?

 

It is (now, though God knows whoever could have thought otherwise) clear that leaving the whole population to establish their own approach to the risk resulted in run-away spread destined to completely engulf inadequate NHS resources. So, as the foreseeable and inevitable consequence of "trusting the British people" to make the right decision proved only that they would not, the restrictions have become increasingly draconian, and may yet become more so. At what point should those who took their cue from the herd immunity advice (or even booked their holidays before Covid-19 had crossed into humans) be held personally liable for their actions?

 

We elect our governments, and we must sometimes accept the outcomes of their decisions as the price we pay for worshiping false Gods.

 

In the case of Covid-19, a distracted government was slow to understand what the less distracted could clearly see, botched its messaging, and led millions down the wrong path.

 

But in all the above cases we must accept our responsibility, and pay in blood and treasure its various costs. We are where we are: there is no way to go back and start again. We should choose our politicians, and our governments, with much greater forethought.

[Bulletguy]

jumpstart - 2020-03-28 9:16 PM

 

I would take issue with the time scale here. We booked to go hiking in Mallorca on 20th Feb. There was no big issue with doing this. At the beginning of March there were Covac19 cases in Europe but no suggestion of people cancelling holidays. By the 10th March there were multiple cases in Italy and Spain but none in Mallorca. We decided at that point that it could prove difficult if it all kicked off whilst we were away so postponed it. At that point there was no foreign office directive to avoid travel.It is really in the last two weeks it all went ballistic. It would not have been obviously dangerous for this woman to go at the beginning of March.

It was certainly gathering pace dramatically by the first week of March as i had a hospital appointment March 3rd. On arrival, in the main entrance foyer by every electronic booking in screen, dispensers of hand gel, and onscreen info flagged up in red asking if you had recently returned to UK from any country. There were hand gel dispensers all over the place, everywhere....and i have to say everyone was using them not only on entry but also leaving the premises too.

 

UK government were slow to react. By comparison South Korea rolled out widespread testing very early on and their results are an example others should have followed. Even China went into full lockdown after 30 deaths yet their total fatalities was still 3,300. UK deaths are now in also four figures with lockdown in place until June.

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2020-03-29 12:51 PM..... We should choose our politicians, and our governments, with much greater forethought.

We have to go with the politicians we've got because there is no viable democratic alternative.  And of course even though we had an election recently, we didn't chose them in that election with a pandemic in mind, rather we were faced with a "least bad alternative" after a turbulent and unproductive couple of years - mainly because of the polarised views on Brexit and the continuing activism of those who didn't want to accept the Referendum result.  If anyone had predicted how things would go in the world during the past two or three years no one would have believed much of it even possible.

Having said all that, I think our present PM and Government are rising to the challenge.  And although they will be bound to be seen by historians as having made mistakes, they are doing well.  I wish they weren't being sniped at quite so much by self-appointed "expert" critics and some blinkered, trouble-making journalists.  Our Government is certainly facing up to the need for radical decisions and they are making them.

And I also think there is enough of a "rally round together" from us Brits to make the best of this situation, so I'm reasonably optimistic.  I certainly wouldn't want to replace Boris at the moment; I think he's working very hard, showing leadership, mustering the resources and encuraging the behaviour we need - and getting plenty of it right, which is the best we can realistically hope for.

However I started this thread to point out that potentially dangerous expectations have been raised and that stupid people will continue to be stupid and irresponsible at least partly because of that.  Maybe that's just life and fifty percent of the population are, by virtue of normal distribution, stupider than the the other half.  And that constrains democracy, so we find ourselves having to fumble through it.

[Birdbrain]

Brian Kirby - 2020-03-29 12:51 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2020-03-29 9:40 AM...……………………...

How much do smokers cost the tax payer each year through NHS treatment despite all the warnings , those with an unhealthy diet or lifestyle , drinkers who receive treatment due to booze despite all the warnings , women with abusive partners warned time and again about those abusive partners yet they stay with them and receive NHS treatment , legal expenses and possible prison time for their partners would all be at tax payers expense , those who aren't taking Government advice now who might catch the China Virus due to their stupidity who would need NHS treatment would you have all those pay money back or is it just Brits stuck abroad ???

I think you're mostly arguing for the sake of argument! :-) But OK, it's boring being at home, so why not?

 

There are risks, and there are risks.

 

Take smokers. Smoking has been around for a very long time See here: https://tinyurl.com/pqf892c ). Following its introduction to Europe (16 C) and the USA (17 C), smoking was promoted by the tobacco companies with the full indulgence of the authorities. When the linkage between smoking and lung cancer was first mooted, by Dr Richard Doll, in 1949, most rejected his findings as the work of an obsessive. Some still do, despite the evidence. But, the government finds it more convenient to take the tax revenues they gain than to simply ban the sale of smoking tobacco in all its forms. So should the tax taker forego the revenues, ban smoking, and put up taxes to compensate? Probably. So should smokers therefore pay for their treatment? Most could not afford it, so what of them? Some would say that if the government taxes tobacco: it is, in effect, sanctioning its use, so the state should bear the cost of the illnesses it brings. Others would say they pay enough through tobacco tax to justify NHS treatment. We live in a democracy.

 

Much the same can be argued for alcohol.

 

In the case of domestic abuse, where a woman refuses, for whichever of the many reasons put forward, to leave her abusive partner, which women should be supported, and which abandoned to their fate? Should those with independent means be treated differently to those who are dependent on their abuser for their, and their children's, home and sustenance? In simple terms, it is the abuser who should pay, but some, even when ordered to permanently leave the home and not go near it, while having the cost of supporting their family deducted from their earnings, ignore the restraining orders and contrive to lose their pay out of obsessive spite. So what then? Who then should support the abused?

 

So, Covid-19? Those "who aren't taking Government advice now who might catch the China (sic) Virus due to their stupidity who would need NHS treatment would you have all those pay money back or is it just Brits stuck abroad" needs a little unpacking.

 

For example, which government advice should they have followed? The early advice that we needed to develop "herd" immunity (implying that the sooner we all got the virus the quicker it would all be over), or the later advice that we should "socially distance" from others, or the most recent advice that we should all stay at home - with decremental exceptions?

 

It is (now, though God knows whoever could have thought otherwise) clear that leaving the whole population to establish their own approach to the risk resulted in run-away spread destined to completely engulf inadequate NHS resources. So, as the foreseeable and inevitable consequence of "trusting the British people" to make the right decision proved only that they would not, the restrictions have become increasingly draconian, and may yet become more so. At what point should those who took their cue from the herd immunity advice (or even booked their holidays before Covid-19 had crossed into humans) be held personally liable for their actions?

 

We elect our governments, and we must sometimes accept the outcomes of their decisions as the price we pay for worshiping false Gods.

 

In the case of Covid-19, a distracted government was slow to understand what the less distracted could clearly see, botched its messaging, and led millions down the wrong path.

 

But in all the above cases we must accept our responsibility, and pay in blood and treasure its various costs. We are where we are: there is no way to go back and start again. We should choose our politicians, and our governments, with much greater forethought.

 

Brian you dont like me expressing my view on the issue brought up by the OP ... Your entitled to that view as I am entitled to mine but try to keep it real ... Bored and arguing for the sake of it , silly boy ... As for claiming our Government has led "millions down the wrong path" just how you know that given we have no idea of the China Virus end game I really dont know , I presume if we have more deaths than other countries similar to us you may have a point and you'll use it as another Tory bashing stick and if we have less you wont be able to but until we know that terrible number you dont have a point ... During our last election the public probably had more information available to them than at any other UK election so just how much greater forethought you think is required I dont know , well maybe I do just enough forethought to not vote Tory I suppose ... Lordy My

[Birdbrain]

StuartO - 2020-03-29 1:51 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-03-29 12:51 PM..... We should choose our politicians, and our governments, with much greater forethought.

We have to go with the politicians we've got because there is no viable democratic alternative.  And of course even though we had an election recently, we didn't chose them in that election with a pandemic in mind, rather we were faced with a "least bad alternative" after a turbulent and unproductive couple of years - mainly because of the polarised views on Brexit and the continuing activism of those who didn't want to accept the Referendum result.  If anyone had predicted how things would go in the world during the past two or three years no one would have believed much of it even possible.

Having said all that, I think our present PM and Government are rising to the challenge.  And although they will be bound to be seen by historians as having made mistakes, they are doing well.  I wish they weren't being sniped at quite so much by self-appointed "expert" critics and some blinkered, trouble-making journalists.  Our Government is certainly facing up to the need for radical decisions and they are making them.

And I also think there is enough of a "rally round together" from us Brits to make the best of this situation, so I'm reasonably optimistic.  I certainly wouldn't want to replace Boris at the moment; I think he's working very hard, showing leadership, mustering the resources and encuraging the behaviour we need - and getting plenty of it right, which is the best we can realistically hope for.

However I started this thread to point out that potentially dangerous expectations have been raised and that stupid people will continue to be stupid and irresponsible at least partly because of that.  Maybe that's just life and fifty percent of the population are, by virtue of normal distribution, stupider than the the other half.  And that constrains democracy, so we find ourselves having to fumble through it.

Good post !!!

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2020-03-29 1:51 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-03-29 12:51 PM..... We should choose our politicians, and our governments, with much greater forethought.

We have to go with the politicians we've got because there is no viable democratic alternative.  And of course even though we had an election recently, we didn't chose them in that election with a pandemic in mind, rather we were faced with a "least bad alternative" after a turbulent and unproductive couple of years - mainly because of the polarised views on Brexit and the continuing activism of those who didn't want to accept the Referendum result.  If anyone had predicted how things would go in the world during the past two or three years no one would have believed much of it even possible.

Having said all that, I think our present PM and Government are rising to the challenge.  And although they will be bound to be seen by historians as having made mistakes, they are doing well.  I wish they weren't being sniped at quite so much by self-appointed "expert" critics and some blinkered, trouble-making journalists.  Our Government is certainly facing up to the need for radical decisions and they are making them.

And I also think there is enough of a "rally round together" from us Brits to make the best of this situation, so I'm reasonably optimistic.  I certainly wouldn't want to replace Boris at the moment; I think he's working very hard, showing leadership, mustering the resources and encuraging the behaviour we need - and getting plenty of it right, which is the best we can realistically hope for.

However I started this thread to point out that potentially dangerous expectations have been raised and that stupid people will continue to be stupid and irresponsible at least partly because of that.  Maybe that's just life and fifty percent of the population are, by virtue of normal distribution, stupider than the the other half.  And that constrains democracy, so we find ourselves having to fumble through it.

If you're happy, Stuart, I'm happy for you.My criticism of the government is not they they aren't now making decisions, it is that despite the abundant evidence from elsewhere around the world, on the speed with which the virus spreads, and its consequences, since the beginning of this year, they have been slow to act, both in constraining human contact, and in securing adequate supplies of clinical PPE, test kits, and ventilators. This view is echoed by a number of virologists, epidemiologists, and the WHO. It is not party inspired.There were, after roughly 1 January, two significant issues confronting government. Brexit, and the coronavirus. Brexit, IMO, is by far the less serious of the two, is self-inflicted, and its timescale is within our/their control. That should have resulted in the coronavirus becoming the central focus of government (to be clear, by "government", I mean the whole apparatus of government, not just the cabinet). Instead, until this past week, and to a lesser extent the week before, we have had far too many mixed messages coupled with lethargic marshalling of resources. The result has been claims that the required clinical PPE was available, while those in need worked on without it, claims that additional ventilators were available and more were on order, when none materialised and no-one had delivery dates, ditto with the test kits, with tests being increasingly restricted as what stock we had was running down, and confusing, and at times conflicting, requests, and finally instruction, on what we, as individuals, should, or should not, do. There is a scale for these things: I do not expect perfection, and accept that mistakes are inevitable ('though to make mistakes, one has first to decide on a course - which is my largest beef), but on a scale of 1 to 10, I rate the government's overall Covid-19 performance somewhere around 4. It is true that they lack experience, but in a crisis that does not count in their favour, it merely becomes an excuse. They missed the bus, and are now playing catch-up. I hope for all our sakes that they succeed, but the auguries are not, IMO, good.I agree with your final paragraph, which largely reflects my own thoughts, as quoted at the head of your post. We are in need of wise, experienced, leaders, who are less fearful of making themselves unpopular when necessity dictates that unpopular things must be done.

[Brian Kirby]

Birdbrain - 2020-03-29 2:23 PM...…………………...

Brian you dont like me expressing my view on the issue brought up by the OP ... Your entitled to that view as I am entitled to mine but try to keep it real ... Bored and arguing for the sake of it , silly boy ... As for claiming our Government has led "millions down the wrong path" just how you know that given we have no idea of the China Virus end game I really dont know , I presume if we have more deaths than other countries similar to us you may have a point and you'll use it as another Tory bashing stick and if we have less you wont be able to but until we know that terrible number you dont have a point ... During our last election the public probably had more information available to them than at any other UK election so just how much greater forethought you think is required I dont know , well maybe I do just enough forethought to not vote Tory I suppose ... Lordy My

On the contrary, I took the time to respond to your view. I don't agree with you, but that is not the same as not "liking" you expressing it!

 

We have a population of somewhere around 66 million. Until mid March, people were not responding to the need to "socially distance" or "self isolate" to the extent necessary to restrict the spread of the virus. It had been incumbent on government to convey the urgent need to do this since around the beginning of February. That message was fluffed. Fluffing their message led many people to think the message did not apply to them. Those are the millions. So, the virus spread more widely, more quickly, than expected. That was the wrong path.

 

I'm not "Tory bashing" I'm criticising the performance of our present government, which merely happens to be Conservative. I don't think I'd be stupid enough to withhold the same criticism of any government of whatever political stripe merely on the basis of my political preferences. Shortcomings are shortcomings, whoever exhibits them.

 

Forethought is what should be informed by election information before voting. Yes, there was much information, but the basis on which we vote is supposed also to take account of the qualities of the candidates. It is the elected MPs who go on to for government and opposition. Good government requires good opposition, at present, IMO, we lack both.

 

There have been good Conservative governments, and bad. Ditto labour. I'm not blinded to the strengths and weaknesses of either by political affiliation verging on religious fervour - though far to many are! So I'm sorry, but that seems to me to be exactly what leads you to repeatedly rush in to defend the indefensible.

[jumpstart]

It’s all gone very quiet recently from our Home Secretary, it is her who is at fault as far as I understand it for not acting quickly enough to isolate those coming in from N.Italy and China at the beginning of a March. I think she has a lot to answer for.

[StuartO]

These criticisms of our Government are made with benefit of hindsight and don’t seem to me to be valid anyway. Compared to other countries (eg America) we’re doing at least fairly well. Germany has better death rate but that’s explained by the larger denominator they are using because they are doing far more tests. I would like to have seen much earlier FCO advice against non-essential travel everywhere abroad, which would have reduced the number of Brits taking holidays they’d paid and couldn’t claim a refund for but overall, given the nature of our bureaucracy, the need to manage the pace of things affecting industries and the need to get the public on side with the necessary behavioural changes, they’re not doing badly. The Royals, except for Harry and Meghan of course, are doing well too. 

BoJo is handling the communications well and exercising remarkable self discipline in not biting back when asked aggressive questions by nasty journalists. He’s got good sound it’s messages which he is plugging very well. I think he’s got the majority of the public on side and stands a fair chance of keeping them there. 

I wouldn’t have chosen BoJo to lead the Conservatives but I’m happy the way things are going. I think Jeremy Hunt should shut up.  And I don’t really understand where our Brian is coming from at all. 

[jumpstart]

Not really hindsight as many on here were saying two weeks ago why were they letting people in without isolation.

[jumpstart]

Apparently there are up to 6000 Brits abandoned in New Zealand. The only flights they were offered were between 15 to 40,000 each. The consular offices closed last week. Heeeeeelp.