1 Like
Four more small energy suppliers failing today. Really small though, not likely to be a major impact, but the time is coming soon when we find out who is at the table wearing no pants.
1 Like
Iâm trying to find more information / reports on this but the UK currently has a bizarre situation where there are 60,000 care home staff that are not vaccinated.
Our wonderful health secretary has issued an ultimatum that they must be vaccinated by next Tuesday or face losing their job. The care home sector is already under resourced. What happens next??
Itâs a huge number though, and morally wrong.
My bet is that nearly all will get jabbed. For those that donât, without legitimate exemption, will either be moved to non patient-facing roles in the homes where possible or potentially be offered non patient-facing roles in the NHS with qualified NHS staff being seconded back to the care homes. Where that canât be done theyâll be made redundant.
I hope youâre right but even a small number that wont (and there will be some, because of Bill Gates nanobots) it only increases the pressure on a system that is pretty much broken already.
Part of me thinks Javid needs to back down but at the same time vaccination is crucial for these people.
I think we need to know how so many people in an occupation that saw the horror of Covid front and centre have turned against the solution? I suspect I know one reason but I couldnât say whether that would cover a few or a majority.
1 Like
Surprise surprise - although itâs not really given the recent track record of the government at keeping their pals safe.
Iâm struggling to understand this issue and what it means, so Iâm waiting for the inevitable @Kopstar take and the multitudes of discussion to follow.
But on its face, it stinks. Iâm not sure how theyâre justifying thisâŚ
There was a 3 line whip on this i.e. you turn up and vote the way we want you to.
This is like changing the rules of a football match after losing it.
He had been caught allegedly taking cash for being lobbied - cash for favours basically.
The report is here - https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/news/158246/committee-on-standards-publish-report-on-the-conduct-of-rt-hon-owen-paterson-mp/
Main breaches (from the commissioner);
breached the rule prohibiting paid advocacy, set out in paragraph 11 of the 2015 MPâs Code of Conduct, in making three approaches to the Food Standards Agency relating to Randox
breached paragraph 13 of the 2015 MPâs Code of Conduct, on declarations of interest, by failing to declare his interest as a paid consultant to Lynnâs Country Foods in four emails to officials at the Food Standards Agency
breached paragraph 15 of the 2015 MPâs Code of Conduct, on use of parliamentary facilities, by using his parliamentary office on 16 occasions for business meetings with his clientsâŚand in sending two letters, on 13 October 2016 and 16 January 2017, relating to his business interests, on House of Commons headed notepaper
Mr Paterson acknowledged that his use of headed notepaper for two letters relating to his business interests breached the rules of the House and apologised to the Commissioner and to the Committee for doing so. Mr Paterson maintained that he had not breached the Code in any other respect.
The Committeeâs recommendation;
The Committee determined that Mr Patersonâs actions, in particular those relating to paid advocacy, constitute a serious breach of the rules.
The Committee found that Mr Patersonâs actions were an egregious case of paid advocacy, that he repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the House into disrepute.
In line with previous cases of a similar severity, the Committee recommends that Mr Paterson be suspended from the service of the House for 30 sitting days.
I myself donât know the ins and outs of it, only picked the story up last night, had a scan of the main news articles, and the report, then a bit of twitter to see what the masses were saying on the matter.
Thanks @Noo_Noo and @rupzzz but what I really meant is what theyâre doing to circumvent his suspension. I think his actions were pretty cut and driedâŚ
1 Like
Eek.
I donât know the details and youâre right that the optics definitely donât look great. Trying to protect one of âtheir ownâ.
From what I understand one of the issues is that individual MPs are not allowed to call any witnesses nor do they have an avenue of appeal. If thatâs right, then that is clearly contrary to natural justice so would make the procedure automatically unfair - regardless of political affiliation or subject matter.
As regards Patersonâs individual circumstances, I donât know enough detail to say whether the findings against him are actually fair or not. However, it is not unreasonable to expect a fair hearing so I have no problem with seeking to improve the procedure itself to make it fairer. It just looks really bad that this move has come in response to the adverse findings against âone of their ownâ.
However, if the result comes from an unjust process, that taints the legitimacy of the result itself. Fix the process. Then bring proceedings against Paterson again. Donât use the excuse that the process is broken as a way to get your mate off the hook.
2 Likes
From my scan of the commissioners and committeeâs report, Paterson was able to provide evidence/give his views on matters.
I know nothing of how these breaches are reported/judged and agree that if the hearing and outcomes are not fair, then itâs something to be resolved, however the timing of this is not so great - at a time where thereâs already a lot of mistrust of the Governments actions towards their own (Patel and Hancock spring to mind).
1 Like
What? Not even beaten tortured or starved to death, disgraceful and completely unexpected. Donât come back for a very long time!
They were forced to eat âfois grasâ. Thatâs a form of torture, ask the geese!
1 Like
Bloody glad the UK has banned it since leaving the EU.
1 Like