Scrutable

Who could have guessed the revelations that the Number 10 team were blasé and out of their depth during the run up to and the course of the 2020 to 2021 pandemic?

John Crace on Cummings

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other

jimbob wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 10:57 pm John Crace on Cummings

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other

Hmm... I don't like Cummings, but I watched a significant slice of the inquest on TV and I don't recognize much of what Crace writes about... I know his column style is exaggerative ridicule, but Cummings did not slag everyone off and claim he was superior. Indeed I thought Cumming's testimony was utterly believable and reasonable.

(It won't come as a shock to anyone that has worked in a large organization that there is disfunction, power hoarding, office politics, people promoted in excess of their ability, or just plain in the wrong positions, and all the other stuff that drew Cummings' criticism. And it won't come as a shock to anyone following politics that Boris Johnson couldn't make a decision and stick to it).

Indeed the thing that pissed me off watching it was the KC's continual snapping at Cumming's to slow down (he wasn't talking too fast for me... so it came across to me like an attempt to irritate / bait him).

Whatever one might think about Cummings either personally or professionally, he's very watchable. And to be honest, his swearing about the government is probably fair enough. I find a lot of his thoughts on the structure of government and the civil service to have a lot of merit too, to be honest. Even if he is a tw.t.

TopBadger wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2023 9:52 am

jimbob wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2023 10:57 pm John Crace on Cummings

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other

Hmm... I don't like Cummings, but I watched a significant slice of the inquest on TV and I don't recognize much of what Crace writes about... I know his column style is exaggerative ridicule, but Cummings did not slag everyone off and claim he was superior. Indeed I thought Cumming's testimony was utterly believable and reasonable.

(It won't come as a shock to anyone that has worked in a large organization that there is disfunction, power hoarding, office politics, people promoted in excess of their ability, or just plain in the wrong positions, and all the other stuff that drew Cummings' criticism. And it won't come as a shock to anyone following politics that Boris Johnson couldn't make a decision and stick to it).

Indeed the thing that pissed me off watching it was the KC's continual snapping at Cumming's to slow down (he wasn't talking too fast for me... so it came across to me like an attempt to irritate / bait him).

I also watched a lot of Cummings' testimony and I agree with this - Crace overdoes the overdoing. Indeed, Cummings' position is that the fact he was chief Spad shows just how bad everything in government was.

A thing that puzzles me is the indiscipline of the internal messaging. If, when I was managing a reasonable number of people, I had received messages couched in such vile and intemperate language, I would have instructed the sender not to do so again. While I would have considered whether or not to describe them in writing as 'vile', I would certainly have said that they were totally inappropriate to the work place, and that any work related communications always had the possibility of becoming public at some point. A further incident would have led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings chain. I can't believe this is unusual in the workplace. Had none of these people ever had proper jobs?

Nor do I buy Cummings argument that he wasn't misogynistic, because he was equally vile to men. There is a cultural difference in discourse between men, and between men and women. For two mates to greet each other as 'c.nts', appears to be acceptable. For a man to describe a woman as a c.nt is aggressive and demeaning.

I'm sorry, I find no merit in Cummings at all. I think his insights into the functioning of the Civil Service are obvious and trite, and his approach to addressing its evident failings are counter-productive and profoundly unwise. He merits a generous share of the blame for the current disfunction of UK society.

As an outsider looking in, Cummings was as much responsible for the mess as anyone else. He was chief adviser to the Prime Minister after all. He was also largely responsible for Johnson getting the top job in the first place.

Cummings might be right that there were problems with Johnson and the way Cabinet behaved, but Cummings behaviour was no better, as witnessed by the fact that he thought the rules did not apply to him. One of the things about being in leadership positions is that you have to model the behaviour you want others to follow.

Allo V Psycho wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:27 am A thing that puzzles me is the indiscipline of the internal messaging. If, when I was managing a reasonable number of people, I had received messages couched in such vile and intemperate language, I would have instructed the sender not to do so again. While I would have considered whether or not to describe them in writing as 'vile', I would certainly have said that they were totally inappropriate to the work place, and that any work related communications always had the possibility of becoming public at some point. A further incident would have led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings chain. I can't believe this is unusual in the workplace. Had none of these people ever had proper jobs?

Nor do I buy Cummings argument that he wasn't misogynistic, because he was equally vile to men. There is a cultural difference in discourse between men, and between men and women. For two mates to greet each other as 'c.nts', appears to be acceptable. For a man to describe a woman as a c.nt is aggressive and demeaning.

I'm sorry, I find no merit in Cummings at all. I think his insights into the functioning of the Civil Service are obvious and trite, and his approach to addressing its evident failings are counter-productive and profoundly unwise. He merits a generous share of the blame for the current disfunction of UK society.

As a civil servant I can tell you that if I sent an email to colleagues with that kind of language I would immediately be disciplined. Describing a woman as a c.nt is certainly not professional or polite.

Allo V Psycho wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:27 am A thing that puzzles me is the indiscipline of the internal messaging. If, when I was managing a reasonable number of people, I had received messages couched in such vile and intemperate language, I would have instructed the sender not to do so again. While I would have considered whether or not to describe them in writing as 'vile', I would certainly have said that they were totally inappropriate to the work place, and that any work related communications always had the possibility of becoming public at some point. A further incident would have led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings chain. I can't believe this is unusual in the workplace. Had none of these people ever had proper jobs?

I agree that the language was completely unprofessional. To answer your question, an explanation is that SPADs often spend the early part of their careers as parliamentary research assistants for MPs or as employees of the party. Parliament isn't an employer. Instead its more like a very exclusive shared workspace which contains 650 small businesses run by each MP. The party is a bit more like a traditional employer, but it is also dominated by a few politicians. In both there have been very long standing criticisms of there being a macho working culture.

The SPAD is employed by the civil service, but only on a temporary basis and as a personal appointment by the minister. The SPAD is also exempt from some civil service rules regarding impartiality and aren't part of the formal heirachy (ie they answer to the minister and don't manage anyone else).

So in general they probably had very little or no experience of a normal working culture in which there are rules about acceptable behaviour which are enforced by HR. The SPAD's career is based upon having a good relationship with individual politicians. They don't have to care about upsetting anyone else.

For Cummings especially, as far as I know he has been employed as a SPAD, in various ad hoc political campaigns and has been self employed. So likewise, he's probably never had to face the prospect of a disciplinary action by HR due to having written something unprofessional in an email. He might well have been given a bollocking by some minister or other, but Cummings probably didn't care.

Scrutable pin up Carl Henegan gave evidence too, apparently, though not as much as he wanted.

The Spectator have given him the top story as a result.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we- ... s-isnt-it/

I haven't seen any of the inquiry and just read a few quotes. Has Ferguson appeared yet? Will he be asked about how wrong he was in March 2020? Or is he still collecting awards from the government?
And what about the testing in 2020 which went to sh.t pretty quickly and labs got quite pissed off about? Anything from them yet?
What would the Scrutable Pandemic Inquiry look like?

badger wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:19 pm Scrutable pin up Carl Henegan gave evidence too, apparently, though not as much as he wanted.

The Spectator have given him the top story as a result.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we- ... s-isnt-it/

I haven't seen any of the inquiry and just read a few quotes. Has Ferguson appeared yet? Will he be asked about how wrong he was in March 2020? Or is he still collecting awards from the government?
And what about the testing in 2020 which went to sh.t pretty quickly and labs got quite pissed off about? Anything from them yet?
What would the Scrutable Pandemic Inquiry look like?

"compliance fatigue"?

Allo V Psycho wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:27 am A thing that puzzles me is the indiscipline of the internal messaging. If, when I was managing a reasonable number of people, I had received messages couched in such vile and intemperate language, I would have instructed the sender not to do so again. While I would have considered whether or not to describe them in writing as 'vile', I would certainly have said that they were totally inappropriate to the work place, and that any work related communications always had the possibility of becoming public at some point. A further incident would have led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings chain. I can't believe this is unusual in the workplace. Had none of these people ever had proper jobs?

Nor do I buy Cummings argument that he wasn't misogynistic, because he was equally vile to men. There is a cultural difference in discourse between men, and between men and women. For two mates to greet each other as 'c.nts', appears to be acceptable. For a man to describe a woman as a c.nt is aggressive and demeaning.

I'm sorry, I find no merit in Cummings at all. I think his insights into the functioning of the Civil Service are obvious and trite, and his approach to addressing its evident failings are counter-productive and profoundly unwise. He merits a generous share of the blame for the current disfunction of UK society.

The last paragraph.

Remember that this is someone who, when the Barnard Castle trip became public, held a press conference in the Rose Garden where he gave a highly implausible excuse, on which the remnants of the government's credibility hung, and he used that opportunity to point out that he'd predicted a Corona virus pandemic in his blog before it broke out. Except that it was a recent addition that he'd backdated. A pointless, self-aggrandizing lie that actually made him look worse, as by his (false) account, he knew about the risk but did nothing to stop it.

Cummings seems to be giving testimony that supports the same narrative, that he felt the need to lie about in 2020.

This footage of the director of health protection's testimony has made me angry.

Angry at Matt Hancock for trying to stop her giving interviews in order to do her job of furthering public health at the start of a novel epidemic. And maybe even worse, discouraging her from speaking to him. And angry at the person who put Hancock anywhere near public health.

https://youtu.be/_eMDAVpUmYU?si=Gm5m9g5R58u9500Z

badger wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:19 pm Scrutable pin up Carl Henegan gave evidence too, apparently, though not as much as he wanted.

The Spectator have given him the top story as a result.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we- ... s-isnt-it/

Carl "no evidence of a second wave" Heneghan seems to think the enquiry should be less about rude words and more about him.

If he wants it like that, then maybe it should examine the consequences of himself and Sunetra Gupta convincing Boris in autumn 2020 that the UK had already reached "herd immunity" and that there would be no further waves. The same Gupta who said in May 2020 "I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country".

In fact let's broaden the enquiry to look at all of his claims and predictions? Oh - but we can't because like the government with some WhatsApp messages - Comedy Carl wiped his Twitter history in June 2021 to expunge his most daft prognostications.

He also deleted the following preposterous article from his website. The one where in April 2020 he argued there wasn't even really a pandemic...

https://web.archive.org/web/20230401112 ... swine-flu/

bob sterman wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 7:56 am

badger wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:19 pm Scrutable pin up Carl Henegan gave evidence too, apparently, though not as much as he wanted.

The Spectator have given him the top story as a result.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we- ... s-isnt-it/

Carl "no evidence of a second wave" Heneghan seems to think the enquiry should be less about rude words and more about him.

If he wants it like that, then maybe it should examine the consequences of himself and Sunetra Gupta convincing Boris in autumn 2020 that the UK had already reached "herd immunity" and that there would be no further waves. The same Gupta who said in May 2020 "I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country".

In fact let's broaden the enquiry to look at all of his claims and predictions? Oh - but we can't because like the government with some WhatsApp messages - Comedy Carl wiped his Twitter history in June 2021 to expunge his most daft prognostications.

He also deleted the following preposterous article from his website. The one where in April 2020 he argued there wasn't even really a pandemic...

https://web.archive.org/web/20230401112 ... swine-flu/

I wonder if he'd considered that his definition was pretty rubbish, if it didn't include SARS-COV-2 in April 9th 2020. The week with the highest death toll in the UK. He did accept that it was by the WHO's definition.

For some reason I am blocked on Twitter by him. All I did was provide my graphs of ONS data.

Carl complains in his Spectator article that...

The KC questioning me launched into an attack on my credentials.

Let's see what that looked like...

MR O'CONNOR
Before we get into the detail of those events, I'd
like to ask you a little bit more about your expertise
in this area, as it stood at 2020, at the outset of
the pandemic.
As you know, because I think you have been following
the Inquiry, we have heard this week from a series of
academics who have spent, in the main, their
professional careers researching, analysing the spread
of infectious diseases, developing models, to analyse
how such diseases are spread and how they can be
controlled, and considering large-scale public health
issues relating to pandemic preparedness and so on.
You don't have a comparable type of expertise in
this area, do you?

HENEGHAN
So if you mean do I have a narrow expertise in a single
specific disease, the answer is no.

MR O'CONNOR
Well, that wasn't quite my question. That may be right,
but it's also the case, isn't it, that you have not
studied, over the course of your academic career,
preparedness for pandemics, infection control, the way
in which viral diseases spread through populations and
so on?

O'Conner then runs through Carl's publication list from 2017, 2018, 2019 noting all the papers on UTIs, shoulder pain, cancer and hypertension - but notes it's hard to find anything on viral pandemics...

MR O'CONNOR
So, Professor, the general picture I would suggest,
at least looking at your published papers prior to the
pandemic, is that you had a sort of general interest in
matters relating to primary care, perhaps running in
parallel with your practice as a general practitioner,
but -- let me put the question -- but not that detailed
interest in viral transmission of diseases that we've
seen with the other experts?

Brilliant, thanks for that excerpt bob sterman

badger wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:19 pm Scrutable pin up Carl Henegan gave evidence too, apparently, though not as much as he wanted.

The Spectator have given him the top story as a result.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we- ... s-isnt-it/

I haven't seen any of the inquiry and just read a few quotes. Has Ferguson appeared yet? Will he be asked about how wrong he was in March 2020? Or is he still collecting awards from the government?
And what about the testing in 2020 which went to sh.t pretty quickly and labs got quite pissed off about? Anything from them yet?
What would the Scrutable Pandemic Inquiry look like?

Instead we have a KC who seems uninterested in substance and obsessed with reading out rude words he has found in other people’s private messages. What Dominic Cummings said about his colleagues in moments of exasperation is treated like the real substance of the issue. The whole inquiry seems to be working on the premise that we should have locked down harder, sooner and longer – and that, if we had, Sars-CoV-2 would have melted away like snow. ‘Follow the models’ will probably be the inquiry’s closing motto.

I gave evidence at the inquiry last week. I had submitted a 74-page statement on what I thought it should discuss. Instead the main topic was rude words in old Whats-App messages. Was I the ‘f***wit’ referred to in messages from Dame Angela McLean, the chief scientific adviser? I replied that I had no idea but would never use such language about a colleague myself.

The rest of the article is f.ck annoying too.

Maybe, just maybe, they called him a f.ckwit because his contributions were harming their efforts to save lives. And he was pushing analyses that were clearly wrong and stupid. Which of course he seems ashamed of.

Meanwhile, this is accurate


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... dApp_Other

On 28 May 2020, I wrote Whitty an email outlining my concerns (I share this now, given it is a public document and shared with the inquiry team). I wrote: “I have been quite taken aback by how science is being used as a shield for political decisions – and the use of the phrase ‘following the science’ when it is clear that scientists across the world would not reach that conclusion, nor the WHO Health Emergencies Team which I work closely with.”

jimbob wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 12:27 pm Meanwhile, this is accurate


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... dApp_Other

On 28 May 2020, I wrote Whitty an email outlining my concerns (I share this now, given it is a public document and shared with the inquiry team). I wrote: “I have been quite taken aback by how science is being used as a shield for political decisions – and the use of the phrase ‘following the science’ when it is clear that scientists across the world would not reach that conclusion, nor the WHO Health Emergencies Team which I work closely with.”

I’ve got her book to read (posted over on the bargain thread). Look like it could be interesting https://www.amazon.co.uk/Preventable-Pa ... 146&sr=8-1

Allo V Psycho wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:27 am A thing that puzzles me is the indiscipline of the internal messaging. If, when I was managing a reasonable number of people, I had received messages couched in such vile and intemperate language, I would have instructed the sender not to do so again. While I would have considered whether or not to describe them in writing as 'vile', I would certainly have said that they were totally inappropriate to the work place, and that any work related communications always had the possibility of becoming public at some point ...

It's that last point - the failure to understand that any written communication might become public - that baffles me. It's as if these people thought they were living back in the days when politics was conducted in smoke-filled rooms, even though they aren't old enough to even remember those days. I do remember such times, but nowadays I work on the principle that you dance as if nobody's watching and email as if your words may subsequently be read out in a tribunal.

snoozeofreason wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 1:57 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2023 8:27 am A thing that puzzles me is the indiscipline of the internal messaging. If, when I was managing a reasonable number of people, I had received messages couched in such vile and intemperate language, I would have instructed the sender not to do so again. While I would have considered whether or not to describe them in writing as 'vile', I would certainly have said that they were totally inappropriate to the work place, and that any work related communications always had the possibility of becoming public at some point ...

It's that last point - the failure to understand that any written communication might become public - that baffles me. It's as if these people thought they were living back in the days when politics was conducted in smoke-filled rooms, even though they aren't old enough to even remember those days. I do remember such times, but nowadays I work on the principle that you dance as if nobody's watching and email as if your words may subsequently be read out in a tribunal.

I think there is a reason why they were using WhatsApp and not Teams* or Google's messaging service, which I suspect is the official channel.


*The Welsh Assembly uses Teams - at least the branch my brother works in.

jimbob wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 2:46 pm
I think there is a reason why they were using WhatsApp and not Teams* or Google's messaging service, which I suspect is the official channel.


*The Welsh Assembly uses Teams - at least the branch my brother works in.

Yes, I think that maybe they thought that WhatsApp was the 21st century equivalent of a smoke-filled room. It fairly obviously isn't.

snoozeofreason wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 3:05 pm

jimbob wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 2:46 pm
I think there is a reason why they were using WhatsApp and not Teams* or Google's messaging service, which I suspect is the official channel.


*The Welsh Assembly uses Teams - at least the branch my brother works in.

Yes, I think that maybe they thought that WhatsApp was the 21st century equivalent of a smoke-filled room. It fairly obviously isn't.

It is of course possible that they think that Whatsapp is confidential. But there may be a more prosaic explanation.

WhatsApp became the default messaging application about ten years ago. Network effects mean that it’s very difficult to get people to move to using new communications software.

Unless all the political users of WhatsApp persuade their contacts to move, any new application is going to be

Woodchopper wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2023 10:13 am

snoozeofreason wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 3:05 pm

jimbob wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2023 2:46 pm
I think there is a reason why they were using WhatsApp and not Teams* or Google's messaging service, which I suspect is the official channel.


*The Welsh Assembly uses Teams - at least the branch my brother works in.

Yes, I think that maybe they thought that WhatsApp was the 21st century equivalent of a smoke-filled room. It fairly obviously isn't.

It is of course possible that they think that Whatsapp is confidential. But there may be a more prosaic explanation.

WhatsApp became the default messaging application about ten years ago. Network effects mean that it’s very difficult to get people to move to using new communications software.

Unless all the political users of WhatsApp persuade their contacts to move, any new application is going to be

But why were public officials (politicians and civil servants) not using public systems to conduct official business? Their work phones will have some official chat software that's properly vetted.

Apart from the lack of traceability, there is the national security issue. The software needs to be controlled, and the apps on work phones controlled.

It's fine saying that you have to persuade your contacts to move to a particular package, but these are people all working on official business. They should have official contacts. I don't send my colleagues work email from my personal email accounts.