Why have the meetings with PM at regular intervals? I'm sure she has better things to do. Only thing I can think of is the meetings being like a sounding board. "Oh Prime Minister I'm extremely embarrassed by these shenanigans at number 10 involving cheese and wine" . Prime Minister, "yes Mam there will be an enquiry at once". Going back further. PM "I Need parliament proroguing so I can get this nasty business sorted asap with Europe". The Queen, "Yes that sounds splendid it needs sorting".
And when she was found out she suffered severe conseqences anyway - wasnt she suspended for 6 months made public apologies and admitted it was an idiotic thing to do Compare a Journalist with those actually running the country - its beyond comprehension
I'm not sure she does have better things to do. I'd hope they only have the meetings because they've always had them - the Queen and the royals have shown themselves to be hypocrites happy to use what influence they have in self interest, so I find the idea of the unelected anachronistic leeches having influence on policy to be absolutely repugnant. I think a better question than "why have the meetings?" is "why have the Queen?"
"Oh, and while I'm here, can you fix me up a date with one of your granddaughters; I'm getting a bit fed up with Carrie and all her screaming kids. I'll get one of my mates to make a suitable financial contribution to one of your great causes if you do".
Around 8m people visit Versailles annually compared to about 500k for Buckingham Palace, so if tourism is the prime concern we should probably behead them. In any event some things are more important than money, such as the principles of democracy, accountability and equality of opportunity.
This is the issue. They knew the rules were utter ********, they knew most of the measures were laughable theatrical nonsense to give the misguided impression that actions were making a difference, yet every single day they brought their muppets to the press conference to terrify people, damage their mental health - in some cases irreparably - and destroy their livelihoods.
Versailles brings in around £100m in direct cash and several £bn to hotels are restaurants in Paris per year (you could argue whether they visit Paris to visit Versailles or visit Versailles while they are in Paris).
Because we need someone to look after the every need of the 1000 or so refugees we could house in Buck Palace?
It's almost as if those setting the rules thought they were stupid. It was a very strange time, I remember May 2020 and Continuing to go to work and mixing with over a hundred people as normal. Friends who were working from home asking if I was scared and had thought about not going in.
And people STILL follow their rules unconditionally and take in every word they say, and judge others for not doing so. Incredible.
Unless it's Sky, cos they'll keep fcking about with the fixtures and I can see me missing quite a number of head-offs cos of work commitments.
You might argue the rules were rubbish. I might argue the rules were fundamentally right, but poorly implemented and both too late and too lax, but I think we could both agree that the rules were neither 100% bad (lowest ever road deaths, lower child mortality, lower pollution, lower male suicide rates, etc) or 100% good (mental health issues, financial support for people and companies, increase in child road deaths, etc). This leaves us in the position where: 1). We cannot guarantee that further lockdowns and restrictions will not be required - either for a future variant (Pi, Rho, Upsilon, Omega, etc) or future novel pathogen with a sufficiently high R0 and IFR (UK Covid IFR is 1% (28 days) or 1.2% (ONS)) 2). We cannot just do the same again without tackling the negatives So, how do we get the positives out of the lockdown, and get them into normal life while making sure that the negatives are mitigated if/when one is needed again?
I like the sentiment, but I would pick up specifically the lower pollution is rather misleading. Sure, I get that particulate matter pollution and CO2 emissions have improved but the environmental impact of that is surely dwarfed by the harmful impact of the 194 billion disposable face masks used every month around the world? I would also say that I struggle with this assumption that seems to be commonplace in both the press and the general population that the "first response" to increasing infection rates is the blunt instrument of measures that were unprecedented before March 2020 and they should only be used as an absolute last resort and certainly never again for anything as mild as Omicron variant - and as you rightly say only with an acknowldgement of the downsides and the calm weighing up of whether the potential benefits outweigh these downsides.
I see the P.M. Johnson did not turn up today in parliament to answer questions on these supposed parties at number 10 of which he is accused of attending but sent 1 low ranking member of the cabinet to answer (there was not another 1 of this corrupt cabinet in the house) he again is treating Parliament with contempt, the speaker Lynsey Hoyle yet again sed nowt. I understand a Mrs. Gray is going to investigate, was she at the parties or more than likely she had an invite, you know and I know he will get away with it he always does.