Michael Barrymore and Stuart Lubbock: Statement Analysis

This blog analyses an interview with Michael Barrymore, conducted by Stephen Nolan on Irish TV in 2013. It’s available on YouTube and worth watching for the in-house audience reaction. Although the ticker tape is running messages of support from Barrymore fans, the people in the audience look deeply uncomfortable.

Asked about his personality, who he was on stage, he contradicts himself so many times that it’s easy to lose track. I have transcribed and analysed the whole thing but here I concentrate on the parts that pertain to Stuart Lubbock’s death.

Michael Barrymore's words are in purple; Stephen Nolan's in red; Gerry McCann's in blue; John Ramsey's in brown.

Stephen Nolan

First, when asked about the fateful night, he tries to diminish his culpability by suggesting that the only thing he was guilty of was hospitality. He starts by saying:

I thought I was ok.

This is a strange thing to say as it implies that for some reason with this particular group of people he wasn’t ok.  He’s sort of shifted the onus onto them. As a group, or as individuals, they somehow rendered him ‘not ok’. But Nolan didn't ask if he was ok; this is just how he has chosen to start his account. With himself.

Lots of people have people back.

He remains adamant that nothing happened to Stuart Lubbock at his house, that his injuries were sustained elsewhere. He hopes that by taking the blame for this one thing (inviting people, some of whom he didn’t know, home), he can somehow dodge all the other accusations. And in a way he's right – if he hadn't asked these people back to his house, Stuart Lubbock would still be alive.

But who decided to ask Stuart Lubbock back and why? Why was a woman deputised to do this? Did she intend to come too? Why do you ask strangers back, what’s the purpose? I’ll leave you to figure this out. It’s not a completely random or the more the merrier type of thing as then Kevin Lubbock would have been asked as well. But anyway, the point is, no one is saying he’s not allowed to have people back – it’s him who’s decided that this is the crux of the matter in order to evade the real issue.

Serious Barrymore

Can I swear?

Asking about this he thinks gives him an air of responsibility – he doesn’t want to commit a minor infraction without the permission of the presenter.

I was pissed.

This gets a nervous giggle from the crowd. This is not good enough for Barrymore. He wants to make them laugh. He hopes that if he can connect with them, make them like him, he can get them back on-side.

That’s not swearing.

This signals his attempt to outdo himself.

I was off my tits.

More nervous laughter. He appreciates this and congratulates himself.

It’s getting better.

He means that he is finally swearing and it’s true that the audience seems to warm to him but only momentarily. He laughs and the people watching do too but they, unlike him, haven't forgotten that Stuart Lubbock died. He’s merely seeking to distract attention from this fact. This isn’t a laughing matter and coming on TV and making lame jokes cannot alter that. In fact, it's simply disrespectful when talking about that night. What these attempts at humour reveal is that he feels nothing for the victim or his family.

Nolan points out that he isn’t a normal person because of his fame and therefore should be more careful about who he takes home. In a sense, he’s accepted Barrymore’s deflection, that this was merely a case of unwise hospitality.

I was gone and one guy said I’ll be your security and went Yeah. Ok.

Omitting the personal pronoun as he does before 'went' is a marker of someone who doesn't want to admit agency and is trying to fudge the issue. And then it's very vague – 'one guy' is who? Why not give the man's name and why doesn't Nolan ask it? And is he suggesting he needed protection from his own guests and that this 'one guy' didn't give it?

And come back and do you know what I think deep down if I was being really honest here.

And why is he saying 'if I was being really honest here'? This suggests that he isn't being honest, just that it's possible that he might be at some stage..

Happy Barrymore

Then he adds:

And I’m comfortable enough here to be honest. 

Then hastily, when he realises this implies he hasn’t been comfortable enough to answer truthfully at other times, maybe any other time (let’s not forget he refused to answer some questions at the inquest), that this could be construed as an admission of mendacity, he follows it quickly with:

Not that I haven't been honest elsewhere.

But the cat is out of the bag. It’s been recorded, broadcast and can't be unsaid or unheard. What we take from this is he hasn't been honest elsewhere.

But sometimes you know with interviewers you close up because you get the thing oh where’s this going and I’m not … I do and I’ll be honest and say that to you now.

Hmm. Never trust anyone who has to continually assert they're honest (that's four times in quick succession). I'm still not sure what he actually means although Nolan says thank you. But, although he's volunteered honesty, he then starts to ramble about inconsequential stuff and you'd have to deduce that this is what he feels he can tell the truth about so is happy to hold forth about it.

But I think that sometimes you know it’s a bit of the London boy’s done well you know come from nothing no, you know, from family and showing off and a bit you know it’s a big house, it’s a nice sound system …

Nolan thinks this digression has gone on long enough as Barrymore has already spoken at length on the subject in the earlier part of the interview (not included here) and breaks in to ask:

What happened?

Barrymore repeats the question as if he has no idea what the man’s talking about, because the death of Stuart Lubbock is of so little consequence to him that he’s simply forgotten about it.

What happened?

Nolan has to remind him:
Stuart Lubbock was found dead in your swimming pool.

Oh yeah yeah yeah.

This is said very casually, in a rather offhand manner. He sounds like he's a little annoyed that he's been forced to return to the point. It’s almost disparaging and is possibly the most telling part of the whole interview, his attitude in these few words. It reminds me of John Ramsey's line about his daughter, JonBenet's murder: The real story here is not that a child was murdered; the real story here is the unjust way we were treated. Seriously? This man has no sense of perspective. And notice that Barrymore doesn't correct or quibble with Nolan's words 'found dead in your swimming pool', which suggests that this was the case although later he says something that contradicts this.

I was in the house and the others were in the pool.

Straight away he’s introduced the ‘others’. As in the Martin Bashir interview, no one asks who he means by this. Here he distances himself from them by failing to name them and claiming he was also physically distant – he was inside, the others were outside. It’s no coincidence that Stuart was found outside, where Barrymore wasn’t. He’s established that immediately.

They said Can they go in the pool? Can they swim in the pool?

Again ‘he’ is not part of them. And they are not named.

Aerial view of Barrymore's property

But it’s halfway through being built. Drew the top back. You’ve got a picture of it there. Drew the top back. The switch is over there on the left and that goes back to show the light underneath.

So here’s a lot of extraneous detail about where the switches are for the pool lights, etc. Why does he feel the need to include all this as it affects nothing? It’s done to delay him having to explain what happened or embark on an untruth. He hopes that the fact that he’s telling the truth about these patently insignificant things proves that he’s a fundamentally reliable witness. He’s saying Look – all these things are true. You can see them in the photograph (i.e. the photograph corroborates my version of events). These are things he can declare with certainty, that can be verified easily, so the public/police can therefore trust his words/him. But are we really that stupid?

It also has the effect of showing him to be a concerned host, an all-round good guy, putting the lights on so that all his guests can see what they’re doing. But which host would refuse to put the lights on? – it’s hardly an effort. I’m calling this whole charade a smokescreen of truth.

Some of them went out to there.

Them again, the mysterious them and they are there, i.e. not with Barrymore. In some versions, the timeline is different as guests go to the jacuzzi before going for a swim. Again though, this is something quite crucial that Barrymore is pretty sketchy on.

There were four girls there as well which the press very conveniently leave out.

He pauses here for emphasis, believing the presence of girls proves it wasn’t the much-touted gay orgy. But the girls might have been invited as 'beards' in order to reassure Stuart that he would be safe, might even hook up with one of the girls. If it had been Barrymore and eight men, he might not have been that keen. The girls don't get named because Barrymore was not interested in them at all.

Interior of house

And I went and had a joint with James and I can’t remember his name now. It doesn’t matter.

Why does he get to decide whether it matters or not? I would say it’s pretty important as this guy could be his alibi. There must be a reason for the failure to name him here as by the time of this interview he must know the man’s name. Why doesn’t Nolan query this?

And then we went back out.

To go back out, he would have needed to be out at some stage. And by 'we', who does he mean? Himself and James Futers? The man he can't remember the name of? All three of them? How much time has elapsed? In all the interviews, there seems to be a leap, from getting shorts for his guests to wear to finding Stuart in the pool.

He said Do you wanna go to the jacuzzi? I said Yeah ok.

Again, Nolan doesn’t ask who the ‘he’ is in this instance. Barrymore makes it seem like he’s just going along with what someone else suggests. More avoidance of agency.

Went out. The other lot had been out earlier.

‘Other lot’ is a weird choice of words; it's slightly derogatory. It would be these 'others' who had been with Stuart. Still no names. Anybody reminded of the 'Others' from Lost yet?

When we went outside, looked down and I didn’t even know Stuart’s name at the time. It was just another member of the party, right?

He thinks he can prove he wasn’t involved in anything if he claims not to know Stuart yet. But in fact, he's only admitted to not knowing his name, which is probably true. 

Look down and he’s there floating in the pool. Whether he’s down or at the top or whatever.

He’s casual, uninterested, vague but these details are crucial, as they would tell us whether Stuart was dead when he entered the pool or whether he drowned in the pool. And surely 'floating' means he was at the top? Why is Barrymore so unsure about this? We need to establish whether he was face down as the newspapers say or face up as Barrymore has said elsewhere. If he was face down, would Barrymore have recognised him? And what happened to 'we'? Now it seems like he was alone at this point. Notice he's missed out the personal pronoun again to fudge the issue. 

Jonathan Kenney

What did you do?

I run [sic]. What, me? The first thing I do is run back into the house and get the … Jonathan who I knew had [a] life-saving experience.

The change of tenses and an increase in ums, ers and pauses show that these are things Barrymore is less certain of or knows are untrue. But why does he say 'get the'? This would seem to relate to an object rather than a person. And if Jonathan Kenney was the life-saver, why didn't he come out and jump in?

And the other guy Merritt came with him.
So now Justin Merritt has become 'the other guy', with the implication that Barrymore did not know him well. And who is meant by 'him'? Kenney?

And James and er, Futers jumped in cause I can’t swim, jumped in and pulled him up and the other guy jumped in as well.

Which other guy? Merritt? Jonathan? Or the guy he can’t remember the name of? Other reports have named Simon Shaw. And whether he can or can't swim is also disputed.

I didn’t see that but they jumped in to get him and I went to get (pauses). The other two, they came out. They started working on him.

Who are the other two? Why can’t he use people’s names? Again, what did he go to get? Why does he always stop short of saying it?

The other ones going round. I was starting to freak out. The girls started screaming when they saw he was just laying there. He wasn’t moving much.

I have no clue what 'The other ones going round' means. Justin Merritt has been labelled one of the others by Barrymore here and elsewhere. Has this been done deliberately to implicate him? Then if Stuart was moving a little, he could still have been alive at this point although (see below), it is more likely he was dead when Barrymore saw him.

Justin Merritt

And James said to me Come away. There’s nothing, no more you can do as the ambulance has been called, they’re working on him there. There’s no more we can do.

As we know now it was Justin Merritt who called the ambulance (see previous blog for analysis of the 999 call transcript). But when? Why is this missing from this account? And as I said in my previous blog, he was probably already dead because Merritt says ‘A geezer’s drowned in the pool’. You wouldn’t say ‘drowned’ of someone who was still alive.

[I’ve only recently read an interview with James Futers, one of the guests who jumped in to pull Stuart out, and he claims Stuart was lying at the bottom of the pool. This would explain why Barrymore says here and has said elsewhere ‘I looked down’. You would have to look down in order to see him if he was at the bottom of the pool.] We know now that, contrary to press reports, Stuart was face up not face down.

So how it was reported is that you ran away.

Not straight ...

He’s about to say ‘Not straight away’ i.e. he did.

… One, I didn’t run away. And first thing, they never report that I actually, the first thing that I did was go and get help.

Ok, confronted with this situation, who wouldn’t go for help? No one. Is he expecting us to believe that in some version of these events, he would have left Stuart floating in the pool? Does he expect kudos for calling for help? And the unsaid part is 'Then I ran away'. I think it could be more accurately described as 'fleeing the scene'.

But they choose not to report those things.

Different they here: the media. A quick whinge from Barrymore, rather similar to the John Ramsey quote.

They were working on him. I was standing there. And instead of going No. I should stay here, I went with the lads down the bottom of the drive to their flat.

You would expect him to be able to name the people living at the bottom of the drive. One was James Futers; the other Simon Shaw. But he calls them 'the lads' which is a friendlier term than 'the others'.

Mike Browne

As I went out, I didn’t ring my PR agent and say. I don’t have, I never had a PR agent. I don’t employ the likes of Max Clifford. Never have done.

Why is this so important to him? He’s trying to say he didn’t attempt to spin the story but whether he called a PR/PA makes no real difference.

I had a PA who was my personal assistant. I rang Mike. I said the guy’s in the pool. He’s on the side of the pool. The ambulance has been rang [sic]. If the police need me I’m in James’s place at the bottom of the drive.

Back to 'the guy'. Back to imprecise language. Is Stuart, sorry, 'the guy', in the pool when Barrymore makes the call or on the side of the pool? This is another point that needs clarification. If he was still in the pool, it would mean he called his PA before anyone called the emergency services.

It didn’t look good you leaving the scene.

Absolutely not. No no. It’s one of the worst things I could have done. And when it gets reported and the way it’s been reported over the years as it has been done (he’s flustered here and losing his way), it can’t look right, can it? It can’t look right at all.

So he’s happy to admit that this was the wrong thing to do and that it made him look guilty but hastens to add:

But that doesn’t make me guilty of something that never happened in the first place.

He gets a bit tripped up here – he wants to assert the fact that he’s not guilty (of something/anything) then remembers his story is that Stuart was not injured at his house so has to add that the ‘something’ didn’t happen at all. And if nothing ‘happened in the first place’, why would he feel the need to run away? But Stuart is dead, something did happen. The post-mortems tell us what. More on the post-mortems here.

They wanted it to fit the way they wanted it to fit. Instead of what the facts were.

This is the press you’re talking about.

Yes, Barrymore has gone back to his bugbear, the press and got away from talking about Stuart.

You know the audience are going to be asking: Did he do it?

Absolutely not. No way. No way did I do it.

Well, this is a very assertive denial but it also admits that someone, if not Barrymore himself, did do it. I think it would be more normal to say I didn’t do anything to him.

Then there’s an immediate turnaround, very similar to Gerry McCann’s (in blue), when asked if he killed Madeleine:

No. And that’s an emphatic no and if I did …

See Peter Hyatt on this.

Here’s Barrymore:

And if I did I, you know, I'd have put my hands up 10 years ago …

Let’s break it down.

And if I did …

So what we have here is him immediately qualifying his denial: ‘No way did I do it … and if I did’, in fact actually positing that he did do it. Why would he even say this, why speculate about what he would have done if he’d killed Stuart? If you were totally innocent, you would simply say ‘No’. So, is this an acknowledgement, if not of his own guilt, of the guilt of someone at the house? Then again break it down further and we have:

I did …

Embedded confession?

I you know …

A little bit of a delay while he thinks how to respond, possibly realising he shouldn’t have started a sentence with ‘And if I did’ …

… I'd have put my hands up 10 years ago

He’s implying that he’s an honest Joe (when he feels comfortable enough, remember) so would have owned up at the time. Then he blusters, in a similar way to Gerry McCann’s:
Find the body.

While I’m here, who is heartless enough to call their own child ‘the body’? And why challenge the police to find the body?

There’s no evidence there. Find the evidence.

See how similar this is. Barrymore knows that his friends, his PA, have all been involved in damage control, removing anything suspicious. But why make this challenge at all? There’s a bit of 'duper’s delight' going on here, very similar to that evinced by Gerry McCann. I’m cleverer than the police – they won't find anything on me. Once more, if he were innocent, he wouldn’t feel the need to mention evidence. He would simply be horrified to be accused. He would want to answer questions at the inquest as, if he didn’t do anything, his cooperation would help clear his name.

Reeva Steenkamp  and Oscar Pistorius

The police did fail to secure the scene, which happens with many of these cases when they’ve believed what they’ve been told by those on site, e.g. JonBenet Ramsey and Reeva Steenkamp, covered in my other blogs.

Nothing happened to the guy there.

Barrymore goes back to ‘the guy’. He’s no longer worthy of a name. Now he’s suggesting that something could have happened to him elsewhere and we know he’s trying to implicate emergency responders or hospital staff.

He mentions the headline: You are a murderer. And asks:

How do you get round that?

He wants to ‘get round’ this but can't think of a way because there is no way round it if you did it.

And then:

How do you show remorse?

You wouldn’t use the word remorse if you weren’t guilty in some way. You would probably say ‘regret’. And ‘show remorse’ suggests an element of acting or demonstrating. It’s important to him that the public recognise he’s showing remorse.

How do you apologise for things you haven't done?

He seems to believe there is a need to apologise but also reiterates that he hasn’t done anything. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, this is possibly an attempt to evince compassion for Stuart’s family.

Terry Lubbock

Then he descends into a bit of a whinge fest, bemoaning his lot.

All the crap that I’ve had to deal with.

This again is disrespectful to Stuart Lubbock and his family. He’s saying that Stuart’s death and the resulting suspicion are just some more crap that he, Barrymore, has had to deal with, as if he shouldn’t have to answer for that. It shows that disturbing lack of perspective I’ve talked about elsewhere. His troubles cannot really compete with what Stuart Lubbock suffered or what his family is suffering.

All the things that happened.

Again this suggests he had no agency, no responsibility – things just happened. See Oscar Pistorius: ‘the night the incident happened’; ‘the gun went off’.

Then finally:

All the mistakes that I made.

This is a partial acceptance of blame but it would be fascinating to find out what he considers ‘mistakes’ in this situation. Is he still only acknowledging he was perhaps too generous a host? The other thing is that it could be seen as diminishing Stuart Lubbock’s death to nothing but a mistake.

I’ve got to look at my part in it as well.

What part is he going to own up to? He doesn’t say. So we’re left with his belief that the only thing he did wrong was invite people back and of course we’d have to be crazy to think this inviting people back was anything he should feel guilty about, that it really was wrong. But exactly how has he looked at his part in it?*

So, although none of this is proof that Michael Barrymore had any part in causing the injuries that Stuart Lubbock suffered (defined by the judge who dismissed Barrymore's damages claim against the police as 'a violent assault, anal rape of a straight man'), it certainly raises questions about whether he is telling the truth as his statements reveal several markers of deceit, narcissism, reluctance, evasion, a refusal to be exact and a lack of empathy for everyone but himself, similar to traits shown by Oscar Pistorius. The problem is that he has never been properly called to account, never been required to fill in any of the gaps or explain any of the inconsistencies in his story, never really been properly interrogated. The police need to look at these interviews and ask the right questions. This has to happen (and if Barrymore is innocent he should willingly comply) if we are ever to learn the truth and Stuart Lubbock ever to find justice. My heart bleeds for Terry and Kevin Lubbock.

Always remember the victims

Justice4Stuart

RIP Stuart Lubbock

*For a case that seems similar, see Joey Comunale.

Coronavirus, Covid-19: Why We Can't Trust the Government

Boris leaving St Thomas's Hospital

It’s my opinion  that the government has made a number of serious mistakes in its handling of Coronavirus and that these mistakes have led to its extensive spread throughout the UK. Someone has done a humorous summary that shows exactly how idiotic and contradictory the government's advice has been. For LOL version check out 😃 end of blog. It would be really funny if it weren't so true.

Instead of learning from other country’s experiences, we’ve decided to make all the same errors and some new ones.

I was going to say, I don’t blame Boris for this, but I think I do. He and his government needed to man up and make some hard decisions and take some drastic action. Their response was gutless. [Perhaps it would have been different if he hadn't contracted the virus himself. He might have stepped up to the plate and taken control but I'm beginning to doubt it. I'm pleased he's recovered now.] Rather than act though, they chose to follow the contradictory advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty. He’s as wishy-washy as he sounds. So what did the UK ultimately do to stop the spread of the virus? Essentially nothing. Here's a list of topics, with the government's policy below, if there was one.

Posters at Heathrow Airport

1. People returning from abroad

What did the government do?

Nothing. Oh sorry, I forgot, they put up some posters, around pillars, so they were difficult to read.

Why did they do it, i.e. Why did they do nothing?

• A dollop of cowardice, with a dash of optimism.
• The Brexit effect – they were afraid of being branded racist – thanks, Dave, by the way.
• Fear of the EU, a body which takes umbrage for a living, which criticised Trump’s failure to act one day, his action the next. We all need to stop worrying about people’s feelings getting hurt. This is too important.
• They hadn’t prepared to quarantine anyone so had nowhere to hold people. But they should have pulled out all the stops, involved industry, hotels, etc. and just bit the bullet.
• They had no testing kits so any quarantine would be indefinite.
• They probably thought that this might spread panic.
• Possibly they were merely stalling for time.

Chris Whitty, CMO, nothing to smile about

What’s wrong with this?

This was the first opportunity to contain the spread of the virus. As soon as it developed in China (when they deigned to tell us, two months after the start), then Italy, we should have closed our borders or at the very least, tested or quarantined anyone returning from the affected countries, as we did with the cruise ship passengers. This would have been unpopular but making this difficult decision early on would inconvenience thousands of people not the millions who’ve now been not only inconvenienced but endangered. This could have saved lives and kept the virus in check. Instead, even today as I write, 10 May 2020, people are coming back through Heathrow and other airports and are not even given leaflets, or any instructions, except for the posters, which apparently advise them to self-isolate. And if they choose not to, we'll never know. And how many people would they encounter on the tube or train before they got home?

What happened?

Travellers who had the virus were allowed to return to their communities and infect everyone else. All that they were told was to self-isolate if they started to feel ill but we now know that it’s possible to have the virus and not exhibit any symptoms.

Pretty soon everyone will have been in contact with someone who’s been in contact with someone who’s been in contact with someone who’s been in contact with someone who came from Italy or China and has carried the virus.

Taking umbrage for a living: Jex Wang

New Zealand did the right thing, quarantining everyone who arrived in the country for two weeks. In consequence, they have had far fewer cases of Coronavirus and far fewer deaths. Australia too - only 93 deaths after immediately banning visitors from China. Naturally it would be worse here and particularly in London because everyone is crammed together. But the government here is at the mercy of the leftwing BBC, who continually feature people who, like the aforementioned EU, take umbrage for a living, like DJ and writer, Jex Wang, whining on about the fact that Coronavirus originating in China might possibly lead to racism.

But perhaps China's role in the spread of the virus needs to be looked at. Donald Trump might be crazy but every now and then he's right.

My tweet from 6 April 2020
hate to say it - @Nigel_Farage  #farage was right about #china. The least they could do now is send us #ppe supplies ... #coronavirus: #Whistleblowers silenced by #China could have stopped global #coronavirus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEQcvcyzQGE&feature=youtu.be  

My tweet from 24 March 2020

Been wondering for days why @BorisJohnson @CMO_England haven't investigated why our #coronavirus #death rate is 4.5% and #Germany's is only 0.4%. I assumed I'd got the figures wrong but: https://washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-coronavirus-death-rate/2020/03/24/76ce18e4-6d05-11ea-a156-0048b62cdb51_story.html… 

Seriously, why didn't we do what Germany did?

2. Stockpiling

What did the government do?

They advised people they didn’t need to stockpile or panic buy.

Why did they do this?

They wanted to avoid panic and reassure people.

What's wrong with this?

It had the immediate effect of ensuring that lots of folk who had the time and money did exactly the opposite. The government put the idea into their heads. They should have just kept quiet.

Empty shelves

What happened?

• There were tons of families who had way more than they needed for the immediate future.
• The rest of us lived day-to-day, unable to get toilet rolls, long life milk, etc. Or only able to get them if we turned up at the right time and joined a long queue.
• Many supermarket shelves were empty where I live, with fewer items every day.
• Weeks later, some of us had still not been able to get any loo roll. Some of those who initially sat back and waited then panic bought as soon as some goods became available again.

Contradiction

I blame the media too because they broadcast this dictum then followed it up with some advice as to what to do if you can't afford to lay food in. So, in one breath, don’t do it, in the next, a how-to guide.

This next was true until a couple of weeks ago. You can tell us as the government has done, that there are no shortages but we have to believe our eyes, I’m afraid and the shelves are still empty. I didn’t panic buy, my brother did. Who’s best off now, me or him? Him, because he doesn’t need to go out over and over again to see if items have been restocked– he’s set for the long haul. Me, I have to run the gauntlet of the queues, the possibility of infection and so on.

They thought they were doing the right thing, but failed to take into account human nature and the will for self-preservation.

My tweet from 16 March 2020

Just a word to @BorisJohnson @VictoriaLIVE @BBCNews @SkyNews on #coronavirus You do realise that every time you tell people not to stockpile or panic buy, it has the exact opposite effect? #humannature Possibly they hadn't even thought of it till you put it in their heads.

My tweet from 16 March 2020

And then you give advice to people who can't afford to #stockpile. Government told them not to then BBC tries to facilitate the very thing they've condemned. #getyourstorystraight @MattHancock #ChrisWhitty @CMO_England #matthancock

My tweet from 21 March 2020

Our local @coopuk #sidcup had no milk, veg, fruit. However we were able to make ourselves a nutritious, crunchy snack with some LED lightbulbs and a packet of #Cocopops. #coronavirus #donttrythisathome

More posters

3. Self-isolation

What did the government do?

They asked everyone over 70 or considered vulnerable to self-isolate for a period of months.

Why did they do this?

They thought it would protect these people.

What’s wrong with this?

If they followed the advice about stockpiling, they would have starved to death.

What happened?

In the event, the most vulnerable who can still get around still have to go to the shops on a more or less daily basis.

Contradiction

You can't follow both bits of advice.

4. Masks

My tweet from 17 March 2020

So all pix of medical personnel show them in #masks #but we're told by @BBCNews  #BBC@CMO_England #CMO they're no use but that #China handled #coronavirus well but we should just wash our hands. Can no1 see the inconsistency? #Tellusthetruth. #UK has no masks 4 us.

See anyone without a mask?

What did the government do?

They’ve told us over and over – the experts, the BBC, the talking heads, that masks would make it all worse rather than better. One pretty Asian doctor has been on nearly every day and as late as 4 April, she’s still saying that the general public don’t need to wear masks, only the health professionals. This is simply nonsensical. And the powers that be assured us of this, while praising China’s handling of the crisis, complete with image after image of medical staff, ordinary civilians, all wearing masks. If they are the best example of good practice, why are they wearing masks? In fact, pictures from Italy, Spain, etc. all show people in masks. It can't be good and bad at the same time. On 23 April, our government was intending to come up with a policy on face masks by the weekend. It's just too late!

Why did they do this?

This has no foundation in science at all so I blame the medical profession for its collusion with the government over this, and every single GP the press have interviewed. Here's why:

• We don’t have enough masks even for frontline NHS staff.
• We don’t have enough masks even for frontline NHS staff. Sorry I know that’s the same reason but like Kryten in Red Dwarf, I felt it was such a big one, it was worth saying twice.
• Again, they didn’t want to provoke panic by saying that masks were effective, knowing that we wouldn’t be able to get hold of any.

What's wrong with this?

It's dishonest, it makes no sense and so it undermines any trust we might have had further.

What happened?

• The people who stockpiled loo roll and hand sanitiser also got first dibs on the masks. All the I’m Alright, Jacks are alright.
• Those of us without are at the mercy of the many people who refuse to practise social distancing, including those wearing masks. See point 7.
• People with masks feel safe and happy to ignore social distancing.
• The virus is clapping its hands in glee.

More posters

5. Washing our hands

What did the government do?

Oh sorry, when I said the government hadn’t done anything, I forgot this. They’ve told us to wash our hands. A lot. They've told us a lot to wash them and they've told us to wash them a lot. Oh sorry, and printed some more posters. Cheers, guys.

Why did they do this?

• Good hygiene might help stop the spread.
• Telling us to wash our hands does not cost the government a penny.

What’s wrong with this?

Well, first of all, for ages, it was the only advice the government gave. It’s been represented as an almost fail-safe device against catching the virus. This is based on some no-doubt-we’ll-soon-find-out erroneous notions about how the virus is spread. Sure, we should wash our hands thoroughly. It can't hurt. But it can if you think that’s enough to save you. And it’s patronising to keep telling us how to do it. It’s possible that many of us have not always washed our hands as thoroughly as we should but we do know how to do it.

What happened?

• If people believe that simple cleanliness alone will save them, they might take other risks and contract the virus some other way.
• It blames the victim. Those who have contracted Coronavirus got it because they didn’t wash their hands properly.
• NHS professionals presumably know all about keeping their hands as clean as possible so why have so many come down with it?

6. Testing

What did the government do?

They advised anybody showing symptoms to self-isolate for 7 days or until they get worse, in which case, they should call 111.

Why did they do this?

Why pretend? We don’t have the capability to test on a large scale or even a small scale. Look at these figures. As of 3 April, only 2,000 frontline NHS staff had been tested. Put this into perspective: at that time, Germany was testing 160,000 civilians per week.

What’s wrong with this?

No treatment has been suggested. By the time they get worse, it could be too late. None of these people will be tested until they are dying or dead in hospital or dead at home.

What happened?

People with Coronavirus were/are not tested, not treated, and some of them have died in self-isolation within 2 to 3 days of being infected, including some frontline NHS staff and people who have the virus but don't know it, can continue to infect others.

And while I’m on testing, lately every single medical professional and BBC pundit has been talking about the two tests that can be done, with one being the antibodies test. This test does not exist. Talking about it as if it’s an option just seems to be a deliberate muddying of the waters. There’s only one test and we don’t have enough kits to do that one.

Lockdown poster

8. Social distancing and lockdown

My tweet from 2 April 2020

Today saw only 1 other person, a jogger, who attempted #socialdistancing #sidcup. girl stopped on bike to talk on phone in narrow passage under bridge we all had to pass. bunch of #hipsterbeards in middle of pavement near #chipshop hard to avoid. #keepyourdistance #peoplearestupid. #coronavirus.

My tweet from 6 April 2020

i wait for an elderly lady to move on from doors of #sidcup #coopuk @coopuk careful not to come within 2 metres, woman walks straight past me + next to old lady. #selfish #malicious #ignorant #coronavirus #saveoldfarmpark @LBofBexley  #bexley @SidcupPartners

What did the government do?

They told us to keep 2 metres away from anyone who isn't a member of our households and to stay at home to save the NHS, so only go out to buy food or medicine. I can't do this as my 90-year-old father lives alone and is bed-bound and dying of cancer. I have to go there three times a day to get him something to drink and interact with a host of key workers who are high-risk.

Why did they do this?

• It can't hurt to keep your distance.
• It’s something we have to do rather than the government so it costs nothing.

What's wrong with this?

It doesn't work. It isn't enforceable. My sister and I and my elderly Dad’s neighbours seem to be the only people in my area who understand it. Out and about and remember we’re still trying to get loo roll and tins and stuff, we’re at the mercy of the mainly young people but a few older folk too who refuse to practise social distancing at all. Whether this is through selfishness, ignorance, downright malice or a combination of all three, I cannot say.

I agree with the lockdown but it's too little, too late and it would be foolish to relax it too early which the government is in the process of doing. 

What happened?

Only those with something to lose, i.e. the elderly and those taking care of them, try to practise it. Mostly, not all but almost all of the runners, breeze past you leaving you in the slipstream of their sweat and exhalations. Even though they're younger and fitter than you, they expect you to move out of their way (hard to do if they approach from behind), stepping into the road or into someone's garden. When you do, they never even say thank you.

What we could/should have done is quarantine incomers, test them, track cases carefully to their source. See Germany and New Zealand. No one even seemed to be asking the question why Germany had such a low percentage death rate in comparison to other European countries, except me. I tweeted it to all news channels, see above. Our government condemned people to death.

Every day we get some more lies, eg PPE is coming, has been delivered, when it hasn't. I advocate a policy of pure honesty from now on. Tell us what you know. Tell us what you don't know. Just tell us the truth.

😃In a nutshell .... (thanks Yvonne Vincent Lay!) Apologies for spelling mistakes as I've simply copied it verbatim. Received via Facebook.

I know we shouldnt laugh at what's happening at the moment, but this did make us chuckle ? The advice at present... ?

As we enter the next 3 weeks of lockdown here is a summary of the advice:

1. You MUST NOT leave the house for any reason, but if you have a reason, you can leave the house

2. Masks are useless at protecting you against the virus, but you may have to wear one because it can save lives, but they may not work, but they may be mandatory, but maybe not

3. Shops are closed, except those shops that are open

4. You must not go to work but you can get another job and go to work

5. You should not go to the Drs or to the hospital unless you have to go there, unless you are too poorly to go there

6. This virus can kill people, but don’t be scared of it. It can only kill those people who are vulnerable or those people who are not vulnerable people. It’s possible to contain and control it, sometimes, except that sometimes it actually leads to a global disaster

7. Gloves won't help, but they can still help so wear them sometimes or not

8. STAY HOME, but it's important to go out

9. There is no shortage of groceries in the supermarkets, but there are many things missing. Sometimes you won’t need loo rolls but you should buy some just in case you need some

10. The virus has no effect on children except those children it affects

11. Animals are not affected, but there is still a cat that tested positive in Belgium in February when no one had been tested, plus a few tigers here and there…

12. Stay 2 metres away from tigers (see point 11)

13. You will have many symptoms if you get the virus, but you can also get symptoms without getting the virus, get the virus without having any symptoms or be contagious without having symptoms, or be non contagious with symptoms...

14. To help protect yourself you should eat well and exercise, but eat whatever you have on hand as it's better not to go out shopping

15. It's important to get fresh air but don't go to parks but go for a walk. But don’t sit down, except if you are old, but not for too long or if you are pregnant or if you’re not old or pregnant but need to sit down. If you do sit down don’t eat your picnic

16. Don’t visit old people but you have to take care of the old people and bring them food and medication

17. If you are sick, you can go out when you are better but anyone else in your household can’t go out when you are better unless they need to go out

18. You can get restaurant food delivered to the house. These deliveries are safe. But groceries you bring back to your house have to be decontaminated outside for 3 hours including Pizza...

19. You can't see your older mother or grandmother, but they can take a taxi and meet an older taxi driver

20. You are safe if you maintain the safe social distance when out but you can’t go out with friends or strangers at the safe social distance

21. The virus remains active on different surfaces for two hours ... or four hours... six hours... I mean days, not hours... But it needs a damp environment. Or a cold environment that is warm and dry... in the air, as long as the air is not plastic

22. Schools are closed so you need to home educate your children, unless you can send them to school because you’re not at home. If you are at home you can home educate your children using various portals and virtual class rooms, unless you have poor internet, or more than one child and only one computer, or you are working from home. Baking cakes can be considered maths, science or art. If you are home educating you can include household chores to be education. If you are home educating you can start drinking at 10am

23. If you are not home educating children you can also start drinking at 10am

24. The number of corona related deaths will be announced daily but we don't know how many people are infected as they are only testing those who are almost dead to find out if that's what they will die of… the people who die of corona who aren’t counted won’t be counted

25. You should stay in locked down until the virus stops infecting people but it will only stop infecting people if we all get infected so it’s important we get infected and some don’t get infected

26. You can join your neighbours for a street party and turn your music up for an outside disco and your neighbours won’t call the police. People in another street are allowed to call the police about your music.

27. No business will go under due to Coronavirus except those businesses that will have already gone under.