1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Untrue. You asked, I answered.

 

You: "What were the excuses of Wales, N Ireland and Scotland?"

 

Me: "I don't know. Maybe the First Ministers of the devolved governments weren't privy to all the information available to Johnson? Maybe they ignored the advice of their advisors? Maybe they were simply incompetent?"

 

However, I note that you have not answered my questions regarding Johnson's behaviour, which I'll repeat here for ease of reference:

 

"Don't you think that by ignoring the advice being given by his own health advisors, and continuing to shake hands with all and sundry, Johnson's actions might have lead to members of the public disregarding the health advice?"

 

 

Once again, that may well be correct but it has no relevance to the point which I am making and which I will repeat here again (for the fourth time).

 

Imo, the UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID was unsurprisingly given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus. It was only his own brush with death that forced him to focus and take the matter with the seriousness it warranted.

 

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

 

Not at all.

 

If you can highlight any leaders who displayed a similar cavalier attitude - be they right, left or centre politically - I will condemn them in the same way as I condemn Johnson for his initial flippant attitude to the pandemic.

 

It is not my political bias which is getting in the way but your willingness to excuse Johnson for yet another of his many flaws.

Funny. "I don't know" is your answer after I'd suggested you read the report. 

 

You clearly haven't read it, otherwise you wouldn't have answered in such a way. 

 

Read the report. 

On 11/22/2025 at 6:26 AM, Bagwain said:

Paid for, by whom? 5555555

BS conspiracy theory, by whom? 555555 

23 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Funny. "I don't know" is your answer after I'd suggested you read the report. 

 

You clearly haven't read it, otherwise you wouldn't have answered in such a way. 

 

Read the report. 

 

Don't change the subject. Stick to the point. Answer my questions.

 

If you think that the report contradicts my opinion that, " ... the UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID was unsurprisingly given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus. It was only his own brush with death that forced him to focus and take the matter with the seriousness it warranted", then it shouldn't be difficult for you to highlight the relevant sections for me.

3 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

Get over it.

 

Government corruption and graft is nothing new...................have you ever been to Thailand?

In the UK we like to know who our corrupt politicians are. What has Thailand got to do with this. It is about how the UK dealt with it.

6 hours ago, Geoff914 said:

In the UK we like to know who our corrupt politicians are. What has Thailand got to do with this. It is about how the UK dealt with it.

Wrong, it is about corruption where PPE was concerned.

 

The rest is water under the bridge and a pointless hindsight critique.

 

 

Thailand is relevant because this is a Thai forum and Thailands CV19 response is a good comparison 

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Don't change the subject. Stick to the point. Answer my questions.

 

If you think that the report contradicts my opinion that, " ... the UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID was unsurprisingly given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus. It was only his own brush with death that forced him to focus and take the matter with the seriousness it warranted", then it shouldn't be difficult for you to highlight the relevant sections for me.

Incorrect. It wasn't a unified "UK". Devolved nations had their own responsibilities. As i pointed out previously.

17 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

Wrong, it is about corruption where PPE was concerned.

 

The rest is water under the bridge and a pointless hindsight critique.

 

 

Thailand is relevant because this is a Thai forum and Thailands CV19 response is a good comparison 

The subject is "UK’s Delayed Covid-19 Response “Cost Thousands of Lives”" Thailand is irrelevant. I do seem to remember Thailand "claiming" to have next to no covid cases and very few covid deaths, if you believe that.

No doubt in your mind the Horizon scandal, grooming gangs and Grenville Tower also recent inquiries are water under the bridge so we can ignore them.

An off topic baiting post with irrelevant content and the replies have been removed.

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

I gave you the answer. Are you hard of reading? You refer to UK and Boris Johnson. I pointed out the devolved governments made their own decisions. Boris wasn't responsible for the UK in it's entirety. Hence I said you were incorrect in saying so.

 

I've not posted anything irrelevant. It's you that has.

 

Yes you answered but no, you did not answer my questions and no, I am not hard of hearing but you are obviously hard of understanding, whether through choice only you know. In addition, you are now coupling pedantry with irrelevance.

 

I have not denied that the devolved governments made their own decisions wrt COVID but the fact is that the policies of the four governments were identical  during the initial phase of the pandemic. Moreover, irrespective of all that, Boris Johnson remained PM of all of the UK - not just England - during the pandemic and his daily TV addresses were televised across all the UK, not just England. Do you therefore not think that Johnson's decisions and actions would be viewed (no pun intended) with interest by those in N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales and maybe have some effect on individuals' behaviour in those countries?

 

However, notwithstanding all that, I will rephrase my opinion slightly and restate it: 

 

Imo, ENGLAND's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID was unsurprisingly given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus. It was only his own brush with death that forced him to focus and take the matter with the seriousness it warranted.

 

The Guardian article (reposted for ease of reference) highlights Johnson's flippant attitude at the time e.g. wash your hands twice and sing 'Happy Birthday', and the fact that he disregarded the advice of his health advisors. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/05/boris-johnson-boasted-of-shaking-hands-on-day-sage-warned-not-to

 

So, back to my unanswered question: Don't you think that by ignoring the advice being given by his own health advisors, and continuing to shake hands with all and sundry, Johnson's actions might have lead to members of the public - or if you prefer, English public -  disregarding the health advice?

 

 

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Yes you answered but no, you did not answer my questions and no, I am not hard of hearing but you are obviously hard of understanding, whether through choice only you know. In addition, you are now coupling pedantry with irrelevance.

 

I have not denied that the devolved governments made their own decisions wrt COVID but the fact is that the policies of the four governments were identical  during the initial phase of the pandemic. Moreover, irrespective of all that, Boris Johnson remained PM of all of the UK - not just England - during the pandemic and his daily TV addresses were televised across all the UK, not just England. Do you therefore not think that Johnson's decisions and actions would be viewed (no pun intended) with interest by those in N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales and maybe have some effect on individuals' behaviour in those countries?

 

However, notwithstanding all that, I will rephrase my opinion slightly and restate it: 

 

Imo, ENGLAND's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID was unsurprisingly given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus. It was only his own brush with death that forced him to focus and take the matter with the seriousness it warranted.

 

The Guardian article (reposted for ease of reference) highlights Johnson's flippant attitude at the time e.g. wash your hands twice and sing 'Happy Birthday', and the fact that he disregarded the advice of his health advisors. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/05/boris-johnson-boasted-of-shaking-hands-on-day-sage-warned-not-to

 

So, back to my unanswered question: Don't you think that by ignoring the advice being given by his own health advisors, and continuing to shake hands with all and sundry, Johnson's actions might have lead to members of the public - or if you prefer, English public -  disregarding the health advice?

 

 

Your in ability to read "hard of reading" correctly, proves my point. 

 

The rest of your comment and the numerous moved goal posts proves you can't accept being wrong. It's a shame you couldn't just admit it at the time.

 

Never mind.

 

31 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Your in ability to read "hard of reading" correctly, proves my point. 

 

The rest of your comment and the numerous moved goal posts proves you can't accept being wrong. It's a shame you couldn't just admit it at the time.

 

Never mind.

 

 

😂 If anyone is searching for a case of the pot calling the kettle black, then look no further!

 

What moved goalposts?

 

Your counter argument to my proposition that I found it unsurprisingly  that the UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID - given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus -  amounts to (a) the UK consists of more than just England and (b) that the other home nations managed their own responses to COVID and made mistakes.

 

This conveniently ignores the fact that (1) the responses during the initial stages of COVID were aligned across the four home nations (2) not one of the three leaders of the devolved governments displayed the same cavalier attitude towards the crisis as Johnson did and (3) England's population constitutes 84% of the UK's. Even if I play Devil's Advocate and accept that Johnson's decisions and actions during (the initial stage) of COVID had no impact in either N.Ireland, Scotland or Wales - which, in itself, is nonsense - the overwhelming majority of the UK's population were directly affected by Johnson's decisions and actions.

 

I have countered each and every one of your objections and directly addressed all your questions, while you have completely failed to answer my question(s) directly.

 

I'm not sure why you couldn't quietly withdraw from our discussion when it became clear that you didn't have a leg to stand on as I would have let matters rest. Perhaps, you have embraced one of the negative aspects of Thai culture too deeply i.e. the refusal to accept a loss of face?

 

Anyway as you say, never mind.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

😂 If anyone is searching for a case of the pot calling the kettle black, then look no further!

 

What moved goalposts?

 

Your counter argument to my proposition that I found it unsurprisingly  that the UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID - given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus -  amounts to (a) the UK consists of more than just England and (b) that the other home nations managed their own responses to COVID and made mistakes.

 

This conveniently ignores the fact that (1) the responses during the initial stages of COVID were aligned across the four home nations (2) not one of the three leaders of the devolved governments displayed the same cavalier attitude towards the crisis as Johnson did and (3) England's population constitutes 84% of the UK's. Even if I play Devil's Advocate and accept that Johnson's decisions and actions during (the initial stage) of COVID had no impact in either N.Ireland, Scotland or Wales - which, in itself, is nonsense - the overwhelming majority of the UK's population were directly affected by Johnson's decisions and actions.

 

I have countered each and every one of your objections and directly addressed all your questions, while you have completely failed to answer my question(s) directly.

 

I'm not sure why you couldn't quietly withdraw from our discussion when it became clear that you didn't have a leg to stand on as I would have let matters rest. Perhaps, you have embraced one of the negative aspects of Thai culture too deeply i.e. the refusal to accept a loss of face?

 

Anyway as you say, never mind.

You mentioned "UK". I pointed out that was incorrect when referring to Boris Johnson's choices. You said you hadn't contradicted the reports when you had.

 

I pointed this out several times. You then changed your narrative to look correct.

 

No loss of face on my part. I'm more than happy that your posts are now falling in line with the truth a little more, on my advice. 

 

 

40 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

You mentioned "UK". I pointed out that was incorrect when referring to Boris Johnson's choices. You said you hadn't contradicted the reports when you had.

 

I pointed this out several times. You then changed your narrative to look correct.

 

No loss of face on my part. I'm more than happy that your posts are now falling in line with the truth a little more, on my advice. 

 

 

 

Have you no shame? 

 

You completely ignore the contents of my post (reproduced below) and introduce yet more diversion.

 

"You mentioned "UK". I pointed out that was incorrect when referring to Boris Johnson's choices."

 

What does that even mean? That because Johnson was not directly responsible for decisions/ actions pertaining to 16% of the UK's population, he should therefore not be held accountable and responsible for his actions and decisions which affected the remaining 84%?

 

I "changed my narrative" i.e. changed the word "UK" to "England" because you were being pedantic, and were using semantics to deflect away from my point i.e. that Johnson's behaviour at the beginning of the pandemic was cavalier (I'm aware that this summation affords you another opportunity to engage in some pedantry and linguistic gymnastics. Oh well, so be it).

 

"No loss of face on my part. I'm more than happy that your posts are now falling in line with the truth a little more, on my advice."

 

I must confess that the bald-faced cheek of this paragraph initially made my blood boil slightly. However, this quickly passed into laughter, and I now look upon its contents with pity for the author.

 

Not that I hold out any hope of a direct answer, but do you agree with my initial comment (see next paragraph)? (Note: For 'UK' read 'England' if you wish).

 

'The UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID was unsurprisingly given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus'.

 

If you don't want to answer that question, how about a direct answer to my supplementary question? Again, I post more in hope than expectation.

 

'Don't you think that by ignoring the advice being given by his own health advisors, and continuing to shake hands with all and sundry, Johnson's actions might have lead to members of the public disregarding the health advice?'

 

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

😂 If anyone is searching for a case of the pot calling the kettle black, then look no further!

 

What moved goalposts?

 

Your counter argument to my proposition that I found it unsurprisingly  that the UK's slow and ineffective response at the start of COVID - given Johnson's initial cavalier attitude to the virus -  amounts to (a) the UK consists of more than just England and (b) that the other home nations managed their own responses to COVID and made mistakes.

 

This conveniently ignores the fact that (1) the responses during the initial stages of COVID were aligned across the four home nations (2) not one of the three leaders of the devolved governments displayed the same cavalier attitude towards the crisis as Johnson did and (3) England's population constitutes 84% of the UK's. Even if I play Devil's Advocate and accept that Johnson's decisions and actions during (the initial stage) of COVID had no impact in either N.Ireland, Scotland or Wales - which, in itself, is nonsense - the overwhelming majority of the UK's population were directly affected by Johnson's decisions and actions.

 

I have countered each and every one of your objections and directly addressed all your questions, while you have completely failed to answer my question(s) directly.

 

I'm not sure why you couldn't quietly withdraw from our discussion when it became clear that you didn't have a leg to stand on as I would have let matters rest. Perhaps, you have embraced one of the negative aspects of Thai culture too deeply i.e. the refusal to accept a loss of face?

 

Anyway as you say, never mind.