This is grotesque.
To make charity to the most vulnerable group in our society dependent on receiving medical treatment is inhuman. I hope - but do not expect - that those who parade their virtue as supporters of the vulnerable condemn it unreservedly.
I hope that this is true. However, will that be possible given this: "Meanwhile, the Guardian reported last week that homeless shelters were shutting their doors due to growing fears around social distancing...
"Housing Justice – the biggest provider of voluntary sector shelters – reported having just 950 beds this year, compared to 2,100 before the pandemic.

"Charity Glass Door said it had been forced to close its usual service due to ongoing Covid precautions...
...and the difficulty of being able to adhere to social distancing after the rise of omicron."

So because of a virus strain that appears comparable to the common cold, they remove more than half of their beds? Yet another example of blinkered monomania causing severe harm.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Francis Hoar

Francis Hoar Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Francis_Hoar

20 Dec
This is insanity.
Every time we have a winter virus the government decides to track, civil society will be at risk.
Everyone who imposed and encouraged lockdowns must now understand that that precedent can never be undone.
That it has left us forever at the mercy of the state.
The idea that the state has a right - let alone a duty - to ‘protect’ the public by restricting the ability of the entire country to go about their lives is a pernicious ideology that would have been - and often was - grasped by every autocratic regime in history.
Read 5 tweets
19 Dec
Good analysis of Medley’s admission. The problem since last year has been the blinkered focus on only one problem and the failure to appreciate that every policy decision - but particularly legislation controlling people’s lives - can cause foreseen and unforeseen harm.
This approach was built in to UK policy making with Raab’s ‘Five Tests’ (in April 2020) that fettered the government’s discretion to remove restrictions until tests relating only to this one virus had been met.
Even if such unprecedented state control could ever be justified (it cannot) that irresponsible monomania prevented the multi-faceted policy decisions necessary - those that considered the consequences on society, economy, public health & democratic norms in the widest sense.
Read 7 tweets
17 Dec
The greatest gift anyone could give would be to burn every last testing kit and to destroy every last laboratory apparatus capable of identifying this virus.

We cannot live like this. Exist, maybe. But not live.
The human condition has, since the Neolithic revolution, required an accommodation with viruses. This is not simply a matter of health, it is a matter of our ability to tolerate the risks as well as the benefits of society in its widest sense.
(And, of course, a wider theme is the capture of this debate by scientists & medics who, even if they are speaking rationally & on the basis of good evidence and data and not flawed modelling (which they often are not) can speak only to one limited element of the wider picture.)
Read 14 tweets
17 Nov
Anyone watching it without comment is no friend of human rights. Whatever else they do, however ‘kind’ they like to think themselves, however much they trumpet that they are ‘human rights advocates’, they have been tried. And they have been found wanting.
Read 4 tweets
10 Nov
Yes. His calibre relative to today’s tells you that in spades. And that was because of not despite his profession.
John Smith may be an extreme example. But my old head of chambers, Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, not only had a regular practice at the Old Bailey, he sat on standing committees (considering legislation), introduced a backbench Bill that became law and held the record for filibustering.
In other words, unlike the (largely) dross that sit in the House of Commons now, he was a legislator, giving his expertise and experience to explain what works, what doesn’t, what would he objectionable and why.
Read 5 tweets
17 Oct
Genius? If true he is responsible for more harm than any Englishman in at least 100 years.

thetimes.co.uk/article/7e00f9…
Look at the vacant expression on the clown.
Can we never again give any responsibility to wonks with no judgement dressed like 14 year olds.
Another one; and fixed.
So we delegated one of the most important decisions in peacetime to a bunch of scruffy youths who spend their time gaming in basements?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(