| Not a good day for the Government in the media 10:16 - Apr 2 with 8264 views | itfcjoe |
Seems almost every front page has turned on them
They are in a mess with all this testing, or lack of testing - and not communicating a clear message now. The lockdown was probably too late, and now the death toll is rising whilst 'Stay at home, stay safe' is still the only message
WHO have been saying Test, Test, Test - 2.5 weeks ago we said we wouldn't be testing - and now we need to start testing we are way behind the rest of the world in sourcing anything.
Boris wanted to come out of this looking like Churchill, he won't. |  |
| |  |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 19:12 - Apr 2 with 779 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 16:56 - Apr 2 by StokieBlue |
I saw a story today where masks were literally on the plane to fly to France from China and some people from the US just paid 3 times as much on the runway and they were diverted to the US.
SB |
The Federal government is also doing the same to States, there were Govenors complaining about it earlier this week. They had placed orders for supplies which they later found out were being redirected to Federal government Reserves. Trump explained that certain States were over hoarding. |  |
| |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 19:24 - Apr 2 with 758 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 18:26 - Apr 2 by StokieBlue |
How would that have meant there were enough masks for everyone?
The general point has merit but you can't shoehorn everything that happens into it.
SB [Post edited 2 Apr 2020 18:31]
|
Because then China would not have an apparent monopoly on face masks due to its cheap labour. |  |
| |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 19:24 - Apr 2 with 759 views | Plums |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 18:34 - Apr 2 by Pecker |
I think todays briefing showed how complicated these tests are. I believe the Government are doing all they can to protect us. I do not see what they gain from not doing so. |
If someone is not malevolent, it doesn’t mean they’re competent. |  |
| |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 19:43 - Apr 2 with 743 views | Kievthegreat |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 14:04 - Apr 2 by EdwardStone |
Very true about the Royal Navy
I suppose one might say that the RAF prevented the invasion from happening by denying air superiority, the Navy would have guaranteed invasion's failure by hampering the event and then cutting off any resupply and reinforcement
Very ably covered by Derek Robinson (he wrote Hornet Squadron, a fictional and bitter account of flying in the First War) in his book Invasion 1940. How I regret giving away my copy
*edited, minor textual amendment*
www.amazon.co.uk/Invasion-1940-Battle-Britain-Hitler/dp/1845294416
I shall re-order today [Post edited 2 Apr 2020 14:36]
|
Worth noting that the Kriegsmarine view on operation Seelowe could probably be summarised as, "you're joking? right?".
The Germany army was hopelessly overoptimistic about the operation and the Luftwaffe massively overestimated it's ability to 'destroy the RAF'. The navy was realistic from the outset that it was essentially impossible to land and supply a significant force, even if the Luftwaffe had complete air superiority, they recognised that the Royal Navy would still throw everything into the channel and the Kriegsmarine could still not hope to protect the landing force and keep it in supply. Given what they were up against, it's absolutely delusional that it was considered for as long as it was (which was admittedly only a few months). |  | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 19:59 - Apr 2 with 700 views | Churchman |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 18:34 - Apr 2 by Pecker |
I think todays briefing showed how complicated these tests are. I believe the Government are doing all they can to protect us. I do not see what they gain from not doing so. |
I’m sure they are trying their best, but it just isn’t good enough. The tests may be complicated but the Germans have done far more in three days than we’ve managed since the start of the outbreak. End of. Protection equipment: it’s no good giving a daily dribble with meaningless statistics when the people dealing with this have no equipment, any more that telling me there are no food shortages when there’s zippo on the shelves.
Yes, they are trying their best, but they are clueless and I think trying to bluff it out with daily briefings they’d rather not do. |  | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:05 - Apr 2 with 685 views | StokieBlue |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 19:24 - Apr 2 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Because then China would not have an apparent monopoly on face masks due to its cheap labour. |
But they don't have a monopoly, they are being produced everywhere. There simply isn't enough of them at the moment.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:08 - Apr 2 with 667 views | EdwardStone |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 19:43 - Apr 2 by Kievthegreat |
Worth noting that the Kriegsmarine view on operation Seelowe could probably be summarised as, "you're joking? right?".
The Germany army was hopelessly overoptimistic about the operation and the Luftwaffe massively overestimated it's ability to 'destroy the RAF'. The navy was realistic from the outset that it was essentially impossible to land and supply a significant force, even if the Luftwaffe had complete air superiority, they recognised that the Royal Navy would still throw everything into the channel and the Kriegsmarine could still not hope to protect the landing force and keep it in supply. Given what they were up against, it's absolutely delusional that it was considered for as long as it was (which was admittedly only a few months). |
I believe that the thinking in the higher ranks of the Germany Army was to view the Channel as if it were just a wide river; I'm not sure if they had considered tides and currents.
Taking a wider perspective, it seems that much of German military strategic thinking was very muddled or utterly delusional. A trait inspired from the very top, one might say |  | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:09 - Apr 2 with 667 views | TractorWood |
Agree. Hancock looked out of his depth earlier. No substance behind how the testing numbers are going to increase ten plus fold in the next three weeks having hovered around the same levels for the last two/three weeks. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:19 - Apr 2 with 641 views | Churchman |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:09 - Apr 2 by TractorWood |
Agree. Hancock looked out of his depth earlier. No substance behind how the testing numbers are going to increase ten plus fold in the next three weeks having hovered around the same levels for the last two/three weeks. |
Totally out of his depth. Empty promises for which they’ll find an excuse or somebody else to blame for not achieving. | | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:23 - Apr 2 with 624 views | Pecker |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 13:53 - Apr 2 by monytowbray |
Cognitive dissonance is real.
As for your edit, it's odd there's a thread here full of people saying the same stuff I have been for weeks. You may not like the way I make my point but if you're struggling to take what I say at face value that says more about you. [Post edited 2 Apr 2020 13:54]
|
Bl00dy Tories |  | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:37 - Apr 2 with 610 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 13:34 - Apr 2 by Swansea_Blue |
Not defending anyone here, but we've got no way of knowing how much influence is being put on these people. I'd be very very surprised if they were given free reign in front of the press, for example. These things are tightly controlled with comms people all over them. In private briefings though, of course they will be thoroughly professional.
We only get to see the public face. For example, I thought Valence's attempt to defend the government position on his Sky interview was incredible muddled and contradictory. Maybe that says more about my understanding of things, but he didn't look like someone defending a position that made sense to himself. |
Exactly this.
These people advise the government, and in many cases governments will not like what they are being told. The end result is often a compromise and they have to stick to that line (and defend it) in public (or resign as a load of the drug advisors did in 2009).
It's entirely feasible that the advice from day one was lockdown but the cabinet said they couldn't do it for economic reasons, then as the days went on, the advisers' hands were strengthened by what was happening. |  | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 12:53 - Apr 3 with 467 views | Kievthegreat |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:08 - Apr 2 by EdwardStone |
I believe that the thinking in the higher ranks of the Germany Army was to view the Channel as if it were just a wide river; I'm not sure if they had considered tides and currents.
Taking a wider perspective, it seems that much of German military strategic thinking was very muddled or utterly delusional. A trait inspired from the very top, one might say |
The 'wide river' seems about right. The army told the navy what they needed and seem stunned when they were told it was impossible. I mean their plan was to tow unpowered river barges across the channel. Surprised no-one suggested a pontoon bridge!
Quote from historian Stehen Bungay:
"rivers are not tidal, not subject to violent storms and are generally not patrolled by the enemy's high seas fleet" | | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 13:15 - Apr 3 with 455 views | EdwardStone |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 12:53 - Apr 3 by Kievthegreat |
The 'wide river' seems about right. The army told the navy what they needed and seem stunned when they were told it was impossible. I mean their plan was to tow unpowered river barges across the channel. Surprised no-one suggested a pontoon bridge!
Quote from historian Stehen Bungay:
"rivers are not tidal, not subject to violent storms and are generally not patrolled by the enemy's high seas fleet" |
I think I recall that had insufficient tugs to move said barges. Rather than towing one or possibly two barges, each tug was planned to tow 5....as you mention, the currents and tides would have rendered this a very slow process. Newcy will be able to tell us, but I don't believe that you can just sail across the Channel in a short straight line, but have to negotiate sand bars and account for the tides and currents.
The barges would be heavily laden, not much freeboard and therefore vulnerable to a Navy destroyer pushing up a bow wave sufficient to sink them....a naval equivalent to a handbrake turn. | | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 13:30 - Apr 3 with 437 views | gordon |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 13:34 - Apr 2 by Swansea_Blue |
Not defending anyone here, but we've got no way of knowing how much influence is being put on these people. I'd be very very surprised if they were given free reign in front of the press, for example. These things are tightly controlled with comms people all over them. In private briefings though, of course they will be thoroughly professional.
We only get to see the public face. For example, I thought Valence's attempt to defend the government position on his Sky interview was incredible muddled and contradictory. Maybe that says more about my understanding of things, but he didn't look like someone defending a position that made sense to himself. |
Yes, completely agree with this - its unlikely that he was defending a position which he was fully happy with in that interview - if that were the case someone of his stature would have come across far more confidently.
The other issue related to this is that on the SAGE group there are all sorts of different experts including economists, behavioural & social scientists, health experts, modellers and epidemiologists. So when they say they are following the 'scientific advice' it isn't necessarily clear whose advice they are following, or what the constraints are around that scientific advice. |  | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 14:54 - Apr 3 with 399 views | Churchman |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 20:37 - Apr 2 by Clapham_Junction |
Exactly this.
These people advise the government, and in many cases governments will not like what they are being told. The end result is often a compromise and they have to stick to that line (and defend it) in public (or resign as a load of the drug advisors did in 2009).
It's entirely feasible that the advice from day one was lockdown but the cabinet said they couldn't do it for economic reasons, then as the days went on, the advisers' hands were strengthened by what was happening. |
That is exactly how it works. If the government doesn’t like what it is told, it demands a different message. I saw this happening last year/ year before first hand.
The idea of delaying lockdown was I believe to warm up the plebs to the very idea. Delay was ludicrous. The result is unnecessary deaths, a Prime Minister in hiding and a government in chaos promising the moon on a stick without the capability of delivering the stick. I’ve no doubt BJs ‘symptoms’ will last a few weeks more, given what he is. He wanted out of the briefings just a week into doing them.
They should form a government of national unity to try and get through this disaster, then hold an election to enable the people to judge how they have handled this. But neither will happen sadly. | | | |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 14:59 - Apr 3 with 391 views | monytowbray |
| Not a good day for the Government in the media on 14:54 - Apr 3 by Churchman |
That is exactly how it works. If the government doesn’t like what it is told, it demands a different message. I saw this happening last year/ year before first hand.
The idea of delaying lockdown was I believe to warm up the plebs to the very idea. Delay was ludicrous. The result is unnecessary deaths, a Prime Minister in hiding and a government in chaos promising the moon on a stick without the capability of delivering the stick. I’ve no doubt BJs ‘symptoms’ will last a few weeks more, given what he is. He wanted out of the briefings just a week into doing them.
They should form a government of national unity to try and get through this disaster, then hold an election to enable the people to judge how they have handled this. But neither will happen sadly. |
I've also said so much. No proof but certainly a possibility.
Had it in my job many a time. The person requests you to pitch both the best strategy to get results and another weaker strategy with their own constraints and concerns in place. What then happens is they go for the one they steered despite you listing all the potential pitfalls of it, whilst claiming it's expert advice from someone else, therefore they f*ck it up and still get to lob someone else under the bus.
It's basically a 4 year old child with crayons telling da Vinci how to paint Mona Lisa. I don't get why people do it. Why hire an expert and pay a load of money to undermine them?
In my industry it usually stems down to budget. "Okay, so i want your proposal that costs £2,000 but also can you do a stripped back one that only costs £500". Not always a bad thing of course when budget limits are a genuine challenge and you have to work around it. But sometimes I've had the case where one of the bosses has an idea in their head of what they want to do despite all contrary evidence and warnings.
The latter would likely be the case if there were any weight in the theory with government actions right now. [Post edited 3 Apr 2020 15:04]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
