29 March 2022: Snape - A

What are the chances of Counsel accidentally at some point referring to the witness not as Doctor but as Professor?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 July 2022: Burnham - B

Coming back to the issue of how letters from individuals were answered (or not), a letter was displayed mentioning how the officials were planning on simply not replying to any more communications from one correspondent. Mr Burnham did not want to comment on the official involved but saw it as an example of one very wrong way the Government of the UK treated its citizens. Again, the document contained assertions of there being no evidence of people being treated without them being told of any risks. Mr Burnham trailed, and then went to, the letter he had to hand from Oxford detailing the inadequacy of using chimps to confirm the efficacy of an anti-haemorrhagic treatment, and so needing to rely on using it with human subjects on a trial basis. It was recognised in the letter there were risks, but these risks were supplanted by the benefits to the patients – according to the writers. The witness read the letter as saying it was the plan to use people as guinea pigs, the justification be...
Read more

14 July 2022: Milburn - E

The day ended in the usual way with questions from core participants: On paying vCJD victims because of saying food was safe, but not applying it to other infections; he said the issue of HIV/HCV not being safe was “contested”, and it was a “fine line” decision. These questions were continuously being probed by people like Phil Hunt, John Hutton, Yvette Cooper, he said. And vCJD was fatal. Counsel had to restate the question. The witness did the clause/pause thing again and managed to say nothing of any useful meaning (an emerging pattern). On departmental “lines to take” sticking around too long and what would be needed to overcome that; he said there was the adage of “officials advise, Ministers decide” ( and?) He mentioned the briefings he initially received in preparation for Health Questions being full of praise for the previous Government, which was just a continuation of what had gone before. He had to change that. So, said Counsel, there was no mechanism to change these. To whi...
Read more

7 May 2025: Thomas-Symonds - A

Following on from the sight of a full panel of witnesses on the platform, the Minister sat in the middle of the long table looking as isolated a “Johnny No-mates”. There was no welcome as usually afforded the witness by the Chair, just a statement of the oath being administered. Before answering questions, the Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds (NTS) wanted to make a statement. That was no surprise. After the obligatory latest apology, the statement was a combination of how short the timescales were (excuses), and how much he wanted to press ahead (oh really). Miss Richards reviewed how the so-called Expert Group had already done its work before he was appointed after the election. He was asked about the Inquiry findings related to the issue of a lack of transparency and candour by officials and how this had impacted the infected blood community. NTS was asked to confirm if the Government was committed to transparency and candour, and he said it was. It was pointed out that the timescale fo...
Read more