Can governments be guilty of corporate manslaughter?Covid: Discharging untested patients to care homes 'unlawful'
The High Court says government policies did not take into account transmission risks to the elderly.www.bbc.co.uk
Next it will be:Johnson 'admits he was in flat during "Abba party" - but for a job interview'
Reports claim the Prime Minister has admitted he was in his flat during a gathering on 13 November 2020 - but insisted he was there for work, interviewing his wife's aide Henry Newman for a potential jobwww.mirror.co.uk
If these excuses were in a sketch show you'd think they were a bit far fetched
"No no I wasn't at the party I was just interviewing a new parliamentary entertainer - see I heard that she was the dancing queen, young and sweet, only 17, but still had to go through the formal interview process before offering her the contract"
I don't think they can. Hence why it's so difficult to criminally prosecute public officials in cases like this. - see David Duckenfield for his Gross Negligence role in Hillsborough.Can governments be guilty of corporate manslaughter?
Just for full context I didn't really want to share the lies.
This was at 14:24 yesterday plenty of time for the Mail to know it was falsehood.
A perfectly reasonable reaction to excessive alcohol consumption. Then again, my housemate, who has supposedly been living here for over half a year, asked where the fridge and freezer were whilst stone-cold sober so...Next it will be:
"I got lost looking for the toilet."
"In your own house?"
"Erm...yes."
Which ones were those?A complete 180 from the UK government following their somewhat alarming remarks earlier in the week
Which ones were those?
I've not been seeking out any news, just seeing what comes up on socials/reddit, but I've not seen anything alarming about the war in Ukraine from Bojo and his rabble
Doesn't really read like anythings changed?Ukraine war: Ukraine can hit Russia with UK weapons - minister
James Heappey says it is acceptable for Western weapons to be used to disrupt Russian supply lines.www.bbc.co.uk
My take is it is an intentional clarification by the defence minister in response to the earlier remarks. To say you aren't sending jets, tanks etc as it might escalate things (by killing Russians not actively in an aggressive manoeuvre) on the one hand but then say its okay to bomb Russians in Russian territory (supply lines come with humans) with British weapons doesn't seem overly consistent a message.Doesn't really read like anythings changed?
The newer article says UK hasn't sent them long range weapons not that they aren't allowed to use them