Boris Johnson Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 (edited) Between this heartless move and the so called support for businesses and the self employed this gov are really making a pigs ear of things. The financial support is shocking, far worse than last time and really petty exclusions. Its like they have tried to word it so that the minimum of people will qualify but they can still say they have given support. From what I see, the people that really need money urgently and who would be really helped by it wont qualify and the people that do quality wont really benefit much at all from a small amount like £1,500 in a decent sized business. Between not doing testing because it would cost too much and this half arsed support, are they skint? Edited January 15, 2021 by Boris Johnson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaymann Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 Just now, Boris Johnson said: Between this heartless move and the so called support for self employed this gov are really making a pigs ear of things. The financial support is shocking, far worse than last time and really petty exclusions. Its like they have tried to word it so that the minimum of people will qualify but they can still say they have given support. From what I see, the people that really need money urgently and who would be really helped by it wont qualify and the people that do quality wont really benefit much at all from a small amount like £1,500 in a decent sized business. Between not doing testing because it would cost too much and this half arsed support, are they skint? We're constantly being told that we don't need to touch the £200m borrowing facility and I think treasury receivables have been strong over the last 9 months, although naturally expenses are well up. I disagree with their approach to the Salary Support Scheme. They're backloading all applications until after 31st Jan. Most of the businesses applying for it need that cash to pay for their payroll in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 2 hours ago, horatiotheturd said: I think "fully capable of self care" is missing the point somewhat. This is awful, and could do the island some more harm if it hits UK press. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/heart-attack-patient-fully-capable-of-self-care-says-govt/ She may be "fully capable of self care" physically, but what about her psychological capability? I know if I had had a heart attack, been flown off-island for treatment and then returned to look after myself in an empty house, I would be pretty shaken and worried. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: She may be "fully capable of self care" physically, but what about her psychological capability? I know if I had had a heart attack, been flown off-island for treatment and then returned to look after myself in an empty house, I would be pretty shaken and worried. Physical self care does not comply with the DHSC's stated aim to aim to provide mental health care in equal measure. believe me, after a heart event there is definitely a need for at least someone to be around to help in any further problems that may arise. Or maybe she can just watch Netflix all day. Also, clinical opinions on the level or type of care she needs is a care planning issue and should never be made public. Whoever has commented on that without her permission is way out of line. needs to be a subject of a complaint. Mind you, complaints process at Nobles is totally put of date and ineffective in my view. Accountability....? Ha ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 2 minutes ago, Gladys said: She may be "fully capable of self care" physically, but what about her psychological capability? I know if I had had a heart attack, been flown off-island for treatment and then returned to look after myself in an empty house, I would be pretty shaken and worried. There is a discretionary exemption provision. It’s there for cases just as this. Someone in DHSC or Cabinet Office has exercised their discretion, and exercised it wrongly if the facts are truly as we have been told. It’s clearly legally unreasonable, using the Wednesbury Unreasonable rules as long as the man is prepared to isolate with his partner, not share the bedroom, test on days 1, 6/7, 13, and care for her. Its also unreasonable to make him move out and pay rent elsewhere. Not just from his view point, but from DHSC view point. If he’d refused DHSC would have had to pay for her to stay at Broadgreen until they’d found for somewhere for her to stay on Island. How mean spirited. Sure I can put them in contact with an advocate willing to write a letter before action on a pro Bono basis. 10 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 2 hours ago, Itsmeee said: Oh, F#F# sake That's about the scale of it... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaymann Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 Great to see self-praise that the Day 1, 7 and 13 testing is identifying cases. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 (edited) Dr Ewart: "As long as we have people coming over the border we will have cases" A defeatist attitude. Get a grip. Surely this can be reduced a lot by insisting on negative test before embarking. Edited January 15, 2021 by Barlow 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 turned it off, the self-congratulations is a bit much for me today. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoymouse Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 I make it Day 1 with no community cases? The 3 picked up were all in out in the community before being identified as a close contact and then begun self isolation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, The Chief said: turned it off, the self-congratulations is a bit much for me today. Turn it back on. Havent got to the questions yet which should be mega Edited January 15, 2021 by horatiotheturd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 44 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said: Between not doing testing because it would cost too much and this half arsed support, are they skint? You would think so, wouldn't you? This wouldn't be out of place in somewhere like Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 Just now, Annoymouse said: I make it Day 1 with no community cases? The 3 picked up were all in out in the community before being identified as a close contact and then begun self isolation? They’re not counted as community as they caught it from positive case in isolation do day 2 today 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horatiotheturd Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 1 minute ago, Annoymouse said: I make it Day 1 with no community cases? The 3 picked up were all in out in the community before being identified as a close contact and then begun self isolation? They aren't counting them as they are assuming was contracted in isolation rather than the community - i think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 10 minutes ago, John Wright said: There is a discretionary exemption provision. It’s there for cases just as this. Someone in DHSC or Cabinet Office has exercised their discretion, and exercised it wrongly if the facts are truly as we have been told. It’s clearly legally unreasonable, using the Wednesbury Unreasonable rules as long as the man is prepared to isolate with his partner, not share the bedroom, test on days 1, 6/7, 13, and care for her. Its also unreasonable to make him move out and pay rent elsewhere. Not just from his view point, but from DHSC view point. If he’d refused DHSC would have had to pay for her to stay at Broadgreen until they’d found for somewhere for her to stay on Island. How mean spirited. Sure I can put them in contact with an advocate willing to write a letter before action on a pro Bono basis. The laugh was for the last comment, the rest deserves a . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.