communication if you like but not enough was done. the other issue i think we will hear an awful lot about was obviously last week was a science week, we heard from some of the top scientists and again the general theme there seemed to be the scientists frustration with this government mantra of following the science which they said basically meant that scientists were used as scapegoats for controversial decisions that politicians were making. and then of course the general thing which has been bubbling along over the last few weeks has been the chaos and confusion right at the centre of government in downing street. a lot of that is to do with the personalities involved, and so i think we will be hearing more on all of that because michael gove really had a front row seat to all of it. and another big name that we are expecting to hear from this week, matt hancock, the former health secretary, of course, who has come in for a huge amount of criticism from those at the very
protect the nation and the public interest? both men have now served as president, so their actual records can be assessed. for all the understandable focus on trump s legal problems and controversies and rhetoric, it was his substantive handling of the covid panic that dragged him down in the eyes of many americans who concluded he failed that task when faced with that all-important leadership test. as for trump, he said at the time he did not see the emergency as his test of a lifetime. was there a moment in all of this last two months where you said to yourself, ah, this is the leadership test of a lifetime? no. no, and no hesitation. now, that is a small part of one of trump s news worthy interviews with legendary journalist bob woodward who secured more time with president trump than any other writer. 20 interviews across that stretch. trump sometimes making the calls. somethinge apparently now regrets. the former president is suing woodward, we should note, over p
ground in a very invidious position where they are asking and encouraging, and a suspect in almost all cases, that encouragement would lead to the parents kind of complying with that was a very challenging scenario for police officers. ., challenging scenario for police officers. ., ,, challenging scenario for police officers. ., ., officers. you re obviously right to the olice officers. you re obviously right to the police officers officers. you re obviously right to the police officers weren t - officers. you re obviously right to| the police officers weren t issuing fixed penalty notices to children, but as you say, the consequence is the probable consequence of these regulations may have been that police officers would stop children playing and tell them to go back inside, tell their parents go back inside. ., , , inside, tell their parents go back inside. what - inside, tell their parents go back inside. what are i inside. undoubtedly. what are . uidance inside.
down the covid secure route. yes. last point in this section is one of you looking ahead steps and we know that we shifted in the rolls over this period of time. you say this. don t go for simple, rigid rules if it is likely you are going to have to bury them or have limited ability or intention to enforce them. that is correct or intention to enforce them. that is correct 50 or intention to enforce them. that is correct. so it or intention to enforce them. that is correct. so it builds or intention to enforce them. that is correct. so it builds on the earlier is correct. so it builds on the earlier point about rules. so the worse earlier point about rules. so the worse thing to do is to say that this is worse thing to do is to say that this is the worse thing to do is to say that this is the rule and then you can see att this is the rule and then you can see all around that it is being broken see all around that it is being broken i see all around that it i