What is The False Positive Percentage? - DHSC Have Not Answered My FOI

 

On the 18 of September I sent the following FOI to the DHSC:

Dear Department of Health and Social Care,

Please can you advise what the percentage of false positive rate is wrt the current Covid tests?

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Ken Frost

By law they should have provided me with an answer by 16 October.

As at 27 October, they have still NOT answered my question!

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Prats of The Week - Councils

Ooh err missus!

Tis time methinks to award another of my prestigious, and internationally renowned, "Prats of The Week" Awards.

This week it goes to our "beloved" and "respected" local councils in general.

For why?

Well my old muckers it seems that, despite the recession and the new age of austerity, councils across the land cannot resist spending bucket loads of our hard earned cash on worthless shite.

A Freedom of Information request has brought to light oodles of daft expenditures (is that English?) eg:

- Hillingdon paid RADA £2,700 to give a Cabinet Member "executive coaching" sessions
- Lewisham spent £300 on a "using social media" day for one person
- Kensington and Chelsea and Brent spent money (at "no cost" to the taxpayer) on in-house Blackberry courses for councillors
 - Ealing sent someone to Chichester for a "Fruit and Vegetables in Public Gardens" conference
 - Kingston-upon-Thames spent money on an internally-run "key fob training seminar"
 - Richmond sent someone to Cardiff for a training course on sex licensing establishments etc

I dare say that were we and the councils earning bucketloads of cash (and a portion of that bucketload was put away for a rainy day) then spending money on such courses etc may be beneficial (or at least harmless) in a growing economy. However, we are in a recession and during the times of plenty Broon and his chums in the councils never put anything away for today's rainy day.


Therefore I would conclude that councils simply do not get it wrt the financial state that we are in.


Councils are the enemies of the people, and well deserving Pats of The Week!




Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Gutless

On the 18th of May the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill passed through the commons.

The Bill will remove Parliament from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and create a new exemption for MPs' communications with public authorities. It has been explained as a measure that would protect the privacy of MPs' constituents.

In a letter to MPs, the Campaign for Freedom of Information has said that it believes that the bill is unnecessary for this purpose.

Correspondence sent by an MP to a public authority, on behalf of a constituent, is already exempt under the FOI Act's existing exemptions. Moreover, the Campaign says this does not explain why it is proposed to remove Parliament itself (which does not hold MPs' correspondence) from the FOI Act's scope.

On the 18th there was an opportunity, via filibuster, to talk the bill down and to wreck it. Unfortunately, aside from those MP's with the guts to at least openly support the bill, there were those MP's who were gutless and chose to hide their true views from the voters by not voting in the third motion.

These gutless MPs voted for the closure motion, but then didn't vote in the Third Reading. Just 16 minutes later.

This means that they supported the Bill, as they did not join in the attempt to filibuster. However, they were gutless and chose not to put on record that they supported it in the Third Reading division itself.

Here are the names of the gutless MPs:

-Christopher Chope, Christchurch (Con)
-Jonathan Djanogly, Huntingdon (Con)
-Stephen Hammond, Wimbledon (Con)
-Nick Hurd, Ruislip - Northwood (Con)
-Eleanor Laing, Epping Forest (Con)
-Shailesh Vara, North West Cambridgeshire (Con)

-Edward Balls, Normanton (Lab, minister)
-Ian Cawsey, Brigg & Goole (Lab, minister)
-Paul Clark, Gillingham (Lab (PPS))
-Vernon Coaker, Gedling (Lab, minister)
-Barry Gardiner, Brent North (Lab, minister)
-Roger Godsiff, Birmingham, Sparkbrook & Small Heath (Lab)
-Mike O'Brien, North Warwickshire (Lab, minister)
-Bridget Prentice, Lewisham East (Lab, minister)
-Joan Ruddock, Lewisham, Deptford (Lab)
-Barry Sheerman, Huddersfield (Lab)
-Jacqui Smith, Redditch (Lab, minister)
-Gerry Sutcliffe, Bradford South (Lab, minister)

Feel free to write to them, and tell them what you think of their gutless behaviour.

Those who stand for public office should have the courage of their convictions, even if they are wrong, to state them publicly.

The gutless ones above should be removed from office without delay.

Scroll down the menu bar on the right and look for the blue box "Fax Your MP", you can use this to write to them.

Auntie Gets Her Knickers in a Twist

Britain is a very lucky country indeed, not only do we have Nanny protecting and guiding us but we also have Auntie (the BBC).

Auntie has long believed herself to be the guardian of everything that is right about Britain, so long as you share her views as to what constitutes her vision of a perfect Britain.

Indeed Auntie has even gone into bat against Nanny on a few occasions, using Nanny's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to unearth stories and issues that Nanny would prefer to be buried.

Unfortunately what is sauce for the goose, seems not to be sauce for the gander when it comes to using the FOIA on Auntie.

Some very naughty people have been using the FOIA to uncover an internal inquiry conducted by Malcolm Balen in 2004 about Auntie's coverage of the Middle East. The Balen report looked into whether Auntie's reporting is anti Israeli pro Palestinian. Auntie doesn't want that inquiry made public, and is spending £200K of licence payers' money (that's our money folks) in trying to hide the report from errrm us...the licence payers.

A truly Nanny type action if ever there was one!

Auntie is to spend the money on fighting a High Court action next week, in order to prevent the Balen report, which is expected to be critical of Auntie's coverage of the Middle East, becoming public.

The story began a wee while ago when a solicitor, Steven Sugar, made an FOIA request. Auntie refused, and the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas agreed with her refusal.

Sugar then appealed the Information Tribunal, and they backed his claims in September. Auntie then took her appeal to the High Court, as she says that the blocking measures she has enforced are there to protect the integrity of her reporting and protects her journalists from interference from the public.

Well, they do say that if you live your life in an abusive environment, you end up being abusive yourself. Evidently Auntie is morphing into Nanny.