Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Was Bj Out Of Order?
Or has this been blown out of proportion?
https:/ /www.ms n.com/e n-gb/ne ws/ukne ws/bori s-johns on-bran ded-hea rtless- over-u- turn-on -meetin g-with- bereave d-famil ies/ar- BB18Cx8 b?li=BB oPWjQ&a mp;ocid =mailsi gnout
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.// But clearly the Government cannot entertain talking to anyone they are in a legal tangle with.//
erm they are called negotiations and everyone does them ( settle out of court )
The english clutch their phantom pearls and or cover bazooms and whisper that it is sub judice ( it isnt)
whilst
in the Land of the Free - ( America that is!) the president who has sworn to uphold justice and law tells the voter to break electoral law and vote twice
it is a mad world . blah blah blah you know the rest
erm they are called negotiations and everyone does them ( settle out of court )
The english clutch their phantom pearls and or cover bazooms and whisper that it is sub judice ( it isnt)
whilst
in the Land of the Free - ( America that is!) the president who has sworn to uphold justice and law tells the voter to break electoral law and vote twice
it is a mad world . blah blah blah you know the rest
I think its a bit of a mix up. He said he would not refuse to meet with bereaved people, not that he would meet with that particular group. The organisation in question may claim that they speak for all the Covid bereaved but they don't. They represent approximately 1,600 people which is nowhere near even a quarter of those who have died so less that that as a percentage of the people who have been bereaved by Covid. I could imagine if he had said that he would meet that (by comparison) small group, then other groups saying "meet us, meet us too, you met them" would be springing up like mushrooms. Its sad and difficult. I think that no one has said that there should not be some kind of enquiry and investigation after this is over or more or less over. In health (as has been said many times at the briefings) its an ongoing process and is part of the reason why the advice changes. I would feel more sympathy for this group of people if they wanted something sensible (discuss an enquiry...I have been to meetings like that), if they represented more of the bereaved and if they hadn't twisted the facts.
BoJo foolishly offered a meeting - going off-piste yet again.
He then repeatedly avoided a meeting (probably under legal advisement by that point).
All through the above, no legal moves were made by the group.
Finally, giving up on Boris, the group has started a legal move to try to get a public inquiry ... which doesn't seem unreasonable in the circumstances.
He then repeatedly avoided a meeting (probably under legal advisement by that point).
All through the above, no legal moves were made by the group.
Finally, giving up on Boris, the group has started a legal move to try to get a public inquiry ... which doesn't seem unreasonable in the circumstances.
Take a look at this page, in particular the third video down (the one with Boris Johnson):
https:/ /www.bb c.co.uk /news/u k-53994 162
https:/
I don’t think it is true that the group is in litigation with the government is it?
Certainly not yet. "
Actually by default, it seems that they are
"Government Legal Department 102 Petty France
Westminster
London
SW1H 9GL
By email and recorded delivery
Dear Sirs,
Re: Proposed Claim for Judicial Review COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK
Date:
Ask For:
Our Ref:
Direct Dial: Your Ref:
22 July 2020 Leanne Devine LD/C227785.001 0151 227 1429
We enclose copies of the following letter for your attention: as a matter of courtesy:
1. Letter before claim today sent to The Rt. Hon Mr Boris Johnson, MP, Prime Minister.
2. Letter before claim today sent to The Rt. Hon Mr Matt Hancock, MP, Secretary of State
for Health and Social Care.
We request that you confirm receipt and further confirm you will revert to us substantively by close of business on 6 August 2020.
Alternatively, our clients have instructed us to issue a Claim for Judicial Review without further notice.
Yours faithfully
Elkan Abrahamson
Leanne Devine
Broudie Jackson Canter
Email: [email protected] DDI: 0151 227 1429
https:/ /www.co vidfami liesfor justice .org/wp -conten t/uploa ds/2020 /07/Let ter-to- GLD-22. 07.2020 .pdf
Certainly not yet. "
Actually by default, it seems that they are
"Government Legal Department 102 Petty France
Westminster
London
SW1H 9GL
By email and recorded delivery
Dear Sirs,
Re: Proposed Claim for Judicial Review COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK
Date:
Ask For:
Our Ref:
Direct Dial: Your Ref:
22 July 2020 Leanne Devine LD/C227785.001 0151 227 1429
We enclose copies of the following letter for your attention: as a matter of courtesy:
1. Letter before claim today sent to The Rt. Hon Mr Boris Johnson, MP, Prime Minister.
2. Letter before claim today sent to The Rt. Hon Mr Matt Hancock, MP, Secretary of State
for Health and Social Care.
We request that you confirm receipt and further confirm you will revert to us substantively by close of business on 6 August 2020.
Alternatively, our clients have instructed us to issue a Claim for Judicial Review without further notice.
Yours faithfully
Elkan Abrahamson
Leanne Devine
Broudie Jackson Canter
Email: [email protected] DDI: 0151 227 1429
https:/
yup If you get a letter that says "if you don't do x then we will do y", then its sensible to assume that y will have happened and that means that you are off to the races. Yes you may decide to meet to negotiate but you don't have to and if it was me at that point (been there) I would say, as BJ has, "Ya gotta talk to my brief mate"