[thread]
1. What was the question?
2. What was wrong with the way it was asked?
3. How was it measured that it “irritated” the public?
1. What was the question?
2. What was wrong with the way it was asked?
3. How was it measured that it “irritated” the public?
So here a reminder on the question
“I’m sure you will all accept what is obvious, you have all been late, very late in dealing with the critical issues of care home staff and care home residents.”
(continued in next tweet)
(continued in next tweet)
“Was that frankly because you wanted to prioritise the lives of younger people in the NHS at the sharp end and have people simply died in British care homes unnecessarily?"
Now what is wrong with this question.
Are you late in dealing with care homes?
Have “some people simply died in British care homes”
Well let me use the Daily Mail that most favoured of press organs of the Fact Check U.K. - sorry I meant cchqpress
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8…
Are you late in dealing with care homes?
Have “some people simply died in British care homes”
Well let me use the Daily Mail that most favoured of press organs of the Fact Check U.K. - sorry I meant cchqpress
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8…
The headline summary points
“GPs are sometimes reluctant to write Covid-19 on death certificates and figures
The latest report from the ONS says that the virus killed 217 care home residents
Industry figures say the true count is much higher – potentially 4,000 dead”
“GPs are sometimes reluctant to write Covid-19 on death certificates and figures
The latest report from the ONS says that the virus killed 217 care home residents
Industry figures say the true count is much higher – potentially 4,000 dead”
So the answer is yes
Some people have some people simply died in British care homes
Now you could be upset at “simply died” but that’s a weird hill to choose to pick a fight on linguistically
Better to play the ball
Some people have some people simply died in British care homes
Now you could be upset at “simply died” but that’s a weird hill to choose to pick a fight on linguistically
Better to play the ball
To the latter part of the question
“Have some people simply died in British care homes unnecessarily?"
If you object to the “unnecessarily”
Then defend your record of lockdown, care home PPE, guidance and policy of hospital to care home transfer of covid patients
“Have some people simply died in British care homes unnecessarily?"
If you object to the “unnecessarily”
Then defend your record of lockdown, care home PPE, guidance and policy of hospital to care home transfer of covid patients
If you did the right thing at the right time
And you are proud of the lapel badges you wear
Simply defend your record
Matt Hancock as health secretary should be the most briefed and prepared across the detail to answer that
And you are proud of the lapel badges you wear
Simply defend your record
Matt Hancock as health secretary should be the most briefed and prepared across the detail to answer that
As Thatcher would say
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
Play the ball
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
Play the ball
Instead
Matt doesn’t play the ball
He plays the person
Which really says all you need to know about his shame
I don’t care about the depths of his shame
I care about the consequences to carers and residents at care homes
Matt doesn’t play the ball
He plays the person
Which really says all you need to know about his shame
I don’t care about the depths of his shame
I care about the consequences to carers and residents at care homes
Now we get to point 3
The public are irritated
Is this the same as the “many people say” attack on the judiciary ?
theguardian.com/politics/2019/…
The public are irritated
Is this the same as the “many people say” attack on the judiciary ?
theguardian.com/politics/2019/…
