Rant Thread

[Felonious Crud]

Accuracy getting in the way of a press news story whatever next, sober SMers at Le Mans?

Oooh, shudder!

 

[MarkMas]

More tiresome accuracy. Can you at least temper it with something else that people can get outraged by?

C

Just correcting the internet one post at a time. Its dirty work, but someone has to do it.

 

[Wattie]

The biggest scandal is that Dyson got rich conning people into buying sh!t vacuum cleaners! Evidence? I bought one once. It was sh!t.....!

Unlucky I guess.
Mine have been decent.....still got them.
I guess with your experience the Uk should be glad it wasn’t reliant on his ventilators.

Suck complaints over

Suck and blow complaints eh!

 

[MarkMas]

Imagine my surprise.
SAGE- Conflicts of interest among the UK government’s covid-19 advisers | The BMJ

Conflicts of interest among the UK government’s covid-19 advisers

Little is known about the interests of the doctors, scientists, and academics on whose advice the UK government relies to manage the pandemic. Attempts to discover more are frequently thwarted, finds Paul D Thacker As the number of UK deaths caused by covid-19 reached 50 000 in early November...

www.bmj.com

Sage in second 'secrecy row' after Government refuses to publish members' financial interests

The financial interests of experts advising the Government on Covid-19 are yet to be published

www.telegraph.co.uk

Theres only one reason you don’t declare something.

Firstly let me say that while the BMJ appears to be, er, a British medical journal, it is actually a political magazine published by the UK doctors' trade union. It is always full of deceptive editorials and 'opinion' articles praising Labour and bashing the Conservative government.

Secondly, there is a case to be made for a lack of 'transparency' - both anonymity and non-disclosure. I can't face going into the details of the argument now, but it is the very 'no smoke without fire' muck-raking that makes doing good public service work so unattractive for good people to do. If anyone who sits on any committee is certain to be subjected to criticism and innuendo then why would they bother to do it? So then the work is done by the intolerably bland or the second-rate. Is that what you want?

 

[MarkMas]

......So then the work is done by the intolerably bland or the second-rate. Is that what you want?

And another thing...

By way of practical example, MrsMarkMas spends about half of her time serving on public-sector boards and committees somewhat similar to SAGE. She has to spend about half of the time she puts in on: compliance, disclosure, transparency, good governance, best practice, documentation, reporting, risk management, safeguarding, health & safety, etc, etc and only half on actually getting things done. And this is supposedly just to make sure that there is no cronyism and that public money is well spent, and that nothing ever goes wrong in any way, but actually results in huge wasted effort, aggravation and disincentives to serve. Meanwhile there is the constant threat of Press or Public coming up with some spurious complaint or dodgy headline which implies that the committee, organisation or individuals involved are riddled with graft and incompetence, just to satisfy some people's assumptions that everyone is on the make, and someone should be blamed for anything that goes wrong. This comes with the constant risk of personal attacks, and pays somewhere between zero and 1/4 of what she gets in private sector work. I have suggested that she should get out of this whole mess, which is way beyond 'thankless', but thank goodness there are some dedicated people who are willing to brave all the pathetic carping.

 

[Wattie]

Firstly let me say that while the BMJ appears to be, er, a British medical journal, it is actually a political magazine published by the UK doctors' trade union. It is always full of deceptive editorials and 'opinion' articles praising Labour and bashing the Conservative government.

Secondly, there is a case to be made for a lack of 'transparency' - both anonymity and non-disclosure. I can't face going into the details of the argument now, but it is the very 'no smoke without fire' muck-raking that makes doing good public service work so unattractive for good people to do. If anyone who sits on any committee is certain to be subjected to criticism and innuendo then why would they bother to do it? So then the work is done by the intolerably bland or the second-rate. Is that what you want?

Firstly, It’s hilarious that anything questioning “ main stream” propaganda from people as qualified as doctors, who apparently keep folks alive ( or their union representatives) is dismissed- if it doesn’t fit a narrative
Some weren’t born with a silver spoon.

Secondly, only a feckwit would take anything at face value nowadays especially when there is a deliberate attempt to hide transparency.
Incredibly, We can face the details, unfortunately they’re hidden from anyone inquiring about them.
Why is it so hard to say I’ve interests in this, and they’re worth this ?
If you stand behind something, own it.
Where’s the innuendo in asking each SAGE member for their financial interests....unless they have something to hide?

 

[Wattie]

And another thing...

...........This comes with the constant risk of personal attacks, and pays somewhere between zero and 1/4 of what she gets in private sector work. I have suggested that she should get out of this whole mess, which is way beyond 'thankless', but thank goodness there are some dedicated people who are willing to brave all the pathetic carping.

“I have suggested that she should get out of this whole mess, which is way beyond 'thankless”

Yes she should, especially if she is earning 1/4 of what she could get elsewhere.
Wtf is she doing it for?

Work smart not hard.

 

[MarkMas]

“I have suggested that she should get out of this whole mess, which is way beyond 'thankless”

Yes she should, especially if she is earning 1/4 of what she could get elsewhere.
Wtf is she doing it for?

Work smart not hard.

Altruism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MarkMas]

....
Where’s the innuendo in asking each SAGE member for their financial interests....unless they have something to hide?

There is no innuendo in asking.

But:
(a) having to make your private investments public is a disincentive to serve (would you do it?),
and
(b) if you work in a field (say vaccines, or gold) you should be able to personally invest in that field based on your expertise without then being faced with suspicion, and demands for disclosure because, er, you work in that field;
and
(c) when you do disclose, you then end up with unfounded suggestions of wrongdoing which you have to try to refute, but you still end up accused and muddy, as evidenced in the BMJ smear job: "Bell had substantial financial interests, now amounting to £773 000 worth of shares, in pharma company Roche, which had sold the government £13.5m of antibody tests in May. Following the deal, Bell appeared on Channel 4 News and Radio 4’s Today, calling the tests a major step forward. Yet Public Health England found the tests unreliable. Bell told the Mail that he had no role in the deal and that he had disclosed to the government “a long list of my interests.” According to the Mail, “He said that he did not sit on the advisory body involved in the decision to purchase the Roche antibody tests, adding: ‘I did not know about the Roche contract until it was signed. I advised on diagnostic home testing kits, not these ones.’”

 

[Wattie]

There is no innuendo in asking.

But:
(a) having to make your private investments public is a disincentive to serve (would you do it?),
and
(b) if you work in a field (say vaccines, or gold) you should be able to personally invest in that field based on your expertise without then being faced with suspicion, and demands for disclosure because, er, you work in that field;
and
(c) when you do disclose, you then end up with unfounded suggestions of wrongdoing which you have to try to refute, but you still end up accused and muddy, as evidenced in the BMJ smear job: "Bell had substantial financial interests, now amounting to £773 000 worth of shares, in pharma company Roche, which had sold the government £13.5m of antibody tests in May. Following the deal, Bell appeared on Channel 4 News and Radio 4’s Today, calling the tests a major step forward. Yet Public Health England found the tests unreliable. Bell told the Mail that he had no role in the deal and that he had disclosed to the government “a long list of my interests.” According to the Mail, “He said that he did not sit on the advisory body involved in the decision to purchase the Roche antibody tests, adding: ‘I did not know about the Roche contract until it was signed. I advised on diagnostic home testing kits, not these ones.’”

Full disclosure should be paramount at the outset.
What you do thereafter is transparent.

So my answer is yes.
It should be mandatory.

Re (c), I reckon that could be solved by a “forensic” of when he bought etc. From day 1, to present.
Not that difficult.

 

[Wattie]

Altruism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Very honourable.
Mugs game nowadays ( nobody works for less than what they’re worth and I hope you’re not offended).

 

[MarkMas]

Very honourable.
Mugs game nowadays ( nobody works for less than what they’re worth and I hope you’re not offended).

Well, I am a little offended, since you seem to have called my wife a 'mug' and me a 'feckwit', within the last few minutes, but I know you struggle to express yourself in temperate language so I guess I will just have to soak up the abuse and move on.

I'm rather more saddened by your cynical attitude towards, well, everything. That attitude seems harmful to society as a whole and likely to be corrosive for the individuals that feel that way.

 

[Wattie]

Well, I am a little offended, since you seem to have called my wife a 'mug' and me a 'feckwit', within the last few minutes, but I know you struggle to express yourself in temperate language so I guess I will just have to soak up the abuse and move on.

I'm rather more saddened by your cynical attitude towards, well, everything. That attitude seems harmful to society as a whole and likely to be corrosive for the individuals that feel that way.

Ok, in order.
1.Very honourable.
Mugs game nowadays....(nobody works for less than what they’re worth and I hope you’re not offended)..
2.Secondly, only a feckwit would take anything at face value nowadays.

Quite why you find this a little offensive I’ve no idea.
It’s my perception of ones “value” re point 1 and secondly you reinforce ( in a good way) my disbelief in things you just suck up, without question, stuff that I think is harmful and corrosive that I think is more harmful and dangerous to society.

Roll on 10000 eh, hopefully we can discuss all this nonsense over a wine or two one day.

 

[Scaf]

Ok, in order.
1.Very honourable.
Mugs game nowadays....(nobody works for less than what they’re worth and I hope you’re not offended)..

I think this view can really only be applied to those that have a choice, perhaps already being financially secure.

For instance, I would say U.K. teachers / Nurses all work for below their worth.

 

[Rwc13]

Ok, in order.
1.Very honourable.
Mugs game nowadays....(nobody works for less than what they’re worth and I hope you’re not offended)..
2.Secondly, only a feckwit would take anything at face value nowadays.

Quite why you find this a little offensive I’ve no idea.
It’s my perception of ones “value” re point 1 and secondly you reinforce ( in a good way) my disbelief in things you just suck up, without question, stuff that I think is harmful and corrosive that I think is more harmful and dangerous to society.

Roll on 10000 eh, hopefully we can discuss all this nonsense over a wine or two one day.

Dear me, he’s at it again, calling people names, presumably in the hope it distracts from the fallacy of his arguments and allegations. Calling all MODs, calling all MODs, please sort this out because I really can’t be bothered to put the alternative view any more. MaskMas, you have the patience of a saint.

 

[Wattie]

Dear me, he’s at it again, calling people names, presumably in the hope it distracts from the fallacy of his arguments and allegations. Calling all MODs, calling all MODs, please sort this out because I really can’t be bothered to put the alternative view any more. MaskMas, you have the patience of a saint.

Really?
fallacy?
Get a grip Rwc and

I think this view can really only be applied to those that have a choice, perhaps already being financially secure.

For instance, I would say U.K. teachers / Nurses all work for below their worth.

that’s fine, it’s still a choice.

 

[Felonious Crud]

Steady on, please. This feels like a repeat of the usual tedious **** that tires and bores everyone. Stop it.

 

[Zep]

Steady on, please. This feels like a repeat of the usual tedious **** that tires and bores everyone. Stop it.

Beat me to it!

 

[Felonious Crud]

Beat me to it!

Where you too busy rolling your eyes, or reaching for your knuckle duster, to respond more quickly?

 

[Zep]

Where you too busy rolling your eyes, or reaching for your knuckle duster, to respond more quickly?

Something like that!