FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > He has no business being there..
He has no business being there..
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm having a trump moment here, whats the story? The government have always said they take advice regarding its strategies" That Dominic Cummings is to the left what Corbyn is to the right - a pantomime villain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm having a trump moment here, whats the story? The government have always said they take advice regarding its strategies" You can be sure that the right would have gone ballistic if Alistair Campbell had interfered in a process of scientific appraisal of evidence and advising government - and they did over Iraq.... At least Campbell had actually done something in his career, instead of hanging round the family nightclub and pretending he was head honcho when secretly all the staff and bouncers despised him like Cummings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence." No, he has had some input in some of the meetings. That forms a major part of the story. And even if he was just present, it may subconsciously affect the ability of the scientists to speak freely. It's not his place to report back - it's for the senior members of Sage to report to the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence." You or I don't know that.. Interesting that number ten saying he could assist the sage committee in helping with any questions about problems in Whitehall, given he lacks the experience nor is that part of his remit perhaps a senior civil service could have fulfilled that role.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm having a trump moment here, whats the story? The government have always said they take advice regarding its strategies That Dominic Cummings is to the left what Corbyn is to the right - a pantomime villain. " He is an absolute crank who has a huge influence on gmnt. Not really sure if that qualifies as a pantomine villain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence. No, he has had some input in some of the meetings. That forms a major part of the story. And even if he was just present, it may subconsciously affect the ability of the scientists to speak freely. It's not his place to report back - it's for the senior members of Sage to report to the government. " I read something yesterday he was part of sage? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence. No, he has had some input in some of the meetings. That forms a major part of the story. And even if he was just present, it may subconsciously affect the ability of the scientists to speak freely. It's not his place to report back - it's for the senior members of Sage to report to the government. " You nor I know his involvement. If you read the article it says he is only mainly an observer, reports back and advises on current government policy if relevant. But don't let facts get in the way of your bias. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence. No, he has had some input in some of the meetings. That forms a major part of the story. And even if he was just present, it may subconsciously affect the ability of the scientists to speak freely. It's not his place to report back - it's for the senior members of Sage to report to the government. You nor I know his involvement. If you read the article it says he is only mainly an observer, reports back and advises on current government policy if relevant. But don't let facts get in the way of your bias." Equally don't let your bias sway your objectivity.. Had this been twenty yrs ago and it been Campbell there or some other advisor, particularly one whose opinion of the whole Whitehall system is of opposition and the need to shred it and remodel as to how he thinks best then rightly so that would and shoukd attract scrutiny.. Granted there will always be those who swallow the propaganda they're fed.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm having a trump moment here, whats the story? The government have always said they take advice regarding its strategies That Dominic Cummings is to the left what Corbyn is to the right - a pantomime villain. He is an absolute crank who has a huge influence on gmnt. Not really sure if that qualifies as a pantomine villain." As did Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. However, digressing and a cheap shot but hey ho, it’s Saturday and I’m bored. Corbyn is also a huge crank. But he had fuck all influence on government. Which is very worrying from the leader of the opposition  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why does he need to be there when the committee reports back anyway? The committee should be free to analyse the science without any interference. " He has been attending the meetings apparently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm having a trump moment here, whats the story? The government have always said they take advice regarding its strategies That Dominic Cummings is to the left what Corbyn is to the right - a pantomime villain. He is an absolute crank who has a huge influence on gmnt. Not really sure if that qualifies as a pantomine villain. As did Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. However, digressing and a cheap shot but hey ho, it’s Saturday and I’m bored. Corbyn is also a huge crank. But he had fuck all influence on government. Which is very worrying from the leader of the opposition "Hmm. One pushed for social justuce whilst the other hired a man who believed in social cleansing Different degrees of crank I guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence. No, he has had some input in some of the meetings. That forms a major part of the story. And even if he was just present, it may subconsciously affect the ability of the scientists to speak freely. It's not his place to report back - it's for the senior members of Sage to report to the government. You nor I know his involvement. If you read the article it says he is only mainly an observer, reports back and advises on current government policy if relevant. But don't let facts get in the way of your bias. Equally don't let your bias sway your objectivity.. Had this been twenty yrs ago and it been Campbell there or some other advisor, particularly one whose opinion of the whole Whitehall system is of opposition and the need to shred it and remodel as to how he thinks best then rightly so that would and shoukd attract scrutiny.. Granted there will always be those who swallow the propaganda they're fed.. " But I have no bias on this. I'm stating what the article says. I would be deeply concerned if he gave medical and scientific advice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm having a trump moment here, whats the story? The government have always said they take advice regarding its strategies That Dominic Cummings is to the left what Corbyn is to the right - a pantomime villain. He is an absolute crank who has a huge influence on gmnt. Not really sure if that qualifies as a pantomine villain. As did Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. However, digressing and a cheap shot but hey ho, it’s Saturday and I’m bored. Corbyn is also a huge crank. But he had fuck all influence on government. Which is very worrying from the leader of the opposition
Hmm.
One pushed for social justuce whilst the other hired a man who believed in social cleansing
Different degrees of crank I guess."Come on Lionel. Admit you smiled a little at that one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm having a trump moment here, whats the story? The government have always said they take advice regarding its strategies That Dominic Cummings is to the left what Corbyn is to the right - a pantomime villain. He is an absolute crank who has a huge influence on gmnt. Not really sure if that qualifies as a pantomine villain. As did Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. However, digressing and a cheap shot but hey ho, it’s Saturday and I’m bored. Corbyn is also a huge crank. But he had fuck all influence on government. Which is very worrying from the leader of the opposition
Hmm.
One pushed for social justuce whilst the other hired a man who believed in social cleansing
Different degrees of crank I guess.
Come on Lionel. Admit you smiled a little at that one " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat." It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat.It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting?" No one knows the exact amount of influence he has but he clearly has a big say behind the scenes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat.It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting?" 'meetings'....that would imply other meetings as well. Remember, we locked down late when it became apparent they ballsed it up . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again" That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence." That isn't how Cummings rolls though, remember the last chancellor gave up his job rather than be dictated to by Cummings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat.It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting? 'meetings'....that would imply other meetings as well. Remember, we locked down late when it became apparent they ballsed it up ." So are you telling me that he was the influence not to lock down earlier? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat.It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting? 'meetings'....that would imply other meetings as well. Remember, we locked down late when it became apparent they ballsed it up .So are you telling me that he was the influence not to lock down earlier? " I'd say it was very possible indeed! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shocking and unbelievable, just like last weeks Sunday Times was shocking and unbelievable...and nobody has mentioned it since about Tuesday. When all this is analysed there’s nothing to read, again. I appreciate the printed media are short of news and on their arse financially but sensationalising the machinations of government is only further adding to public distrust of them" I know, it's awful scrutinizing things isn't it?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shocking and unbelievable, just like last weeks Sunday Times was shocking and unbelievable...and nobody has mentioned it since about Tuesday. When all this is analysed there’s nothing to read, again. I appreciate the printed media are short of news and on their arse financially but sensationalising the machinations of government is only further adding to public distrust of them I know, it's awful scrutinizing things isn't it?? " Except this isn’t scrutiny, it’s mudslinging | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do" Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shocking and unbelievable, just like last weeks Sunday Times was shocking and unbelievable...and nobody has mentioned it since about Tuesday. When all this is analysed there’s nothing to read, again. I appreciate the printed media are short of news and on their arse financially but sensationalising the machinations of government is only further adding to public distrust of them I know, it's awful scrutinizing things isn't it?? Except this isn’t scrutiny, it’s mudslinging" Mudsling=facts. That's a new one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shocking and unbelievable, just like last weeks Sunday Times was shocking and unbelievable...and nobody has mentioned it since about Tuesday. When all this is analysed there’s nothing to read, again. I appreciate the printed media are short of news and on their arse financially but sensationalising the machinations of government is only further adding to public distrust of them I know, it's awful scrutinizing things isn't it?? Except this isn’t scrutiny, it’s mudslinging Mudsling=facts. That's a new one " The fact being he attended meetings, as any government chief advisor is entitled to and expected to. End of story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat.It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting? 'meetings'....that would imply other meetings as well. Remember, we locked down late when it became apparent they ballsed it up .So are you telling me that he was the influence not to lock down earlier? I'd say it was very possible indeed!" You say that is anyone who was at those meetings saying it? Dont let your political bias get in the way of common sense all meetings have minutes which im sure Boris reads and as so many on here accused boris of being power mad do you really think he would take a back seat to cummings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shocking and unbelievable, just like last weeks Sunday Times was shocking and unbelievable...and nobody has mentioned it since about Tuesday. When all this is analysed there’s nothing to read, again. I appreciate the printed media are short of news and on their arse financially but sensationalising the machinations of government is only further adding to public distrust of them I know, it's awful scrutinizing things isn't it?? Except this isn’t scrutiny, it’s mudslinging Mudsling=facts. That's a new one The fact being he attended meetings, as any government chief advisor is entitled to and expected to. End of story" Why is he on the scientific advisory board? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat.It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting? 'meetings'....that would imply other meetings as well. Remember, we locked down late when it became apparent they ballsed it up .So are you telling me that he was the influence not to lock down earlier? I'd say it was very possible indeed!You say that is anyone who was at those meetings saying it? Dont let your political bias get in the way of common sense all meetings have minutes which im sure Boris reads and as so many on here accused boris of being power mad do you really think he would take a back seat to cummings?" So Cummings has no input at all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll." They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat.It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting? 'meetings'....that would imply other meetings as well. Remember, we locked down late when it became apparent they ballsed it up .So are you telling me that he was the influence not to lock down earlier? I'd say it was very possible indeed!You say that is anyone who was at those meetings saying it? Dont let your political bias get in the way of common sense all meetings have minutes which im sure Boris reads and as so many on here accused boris of being power mad do you really think he would take a back seat to cummings? So Cummings has no input at all?" He is an advisor thats his job,boris,s job is to make decisions not that hard to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant " Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seems to me that policy has been driving the response, and scientists have had to be overlooked by this little rat.It seems that he was at the meeting the day before lockdown.So if you think he is having some kind of influence do you disagree that we should have locked down the next day after the meeting? 'meetings'....that would imply other meetings as well. Remember, we locked down late when it became apparent they ballsed it up .So are you telling me that he was the influence not to lock down earlier? I'd say it was very possible indeed!You say that is anyone who was at those meetings saying it? Dont let your political bias get in the way of common sense all meetings have minutes which im sure Boris reads and as so many on here accused boris of being power mad do you really think he would take a back seat to cummings? So Cummings has no input at all?He is an advisor thats his job,boris,s job is to make decisions not that hard to understand." No indeed it's not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone not think it is weird that bill gates owns the world health organisation, he also owns covid 19 man made disease, this has been patented same way aids sars an Ebola was. Covid 19 Is real disease but it’s been blown up I to a pandemic I will tell you why, the want to get rid of money give everyone vaccines will will ruin there immune system an give everyone a micro chip in the had it’s called ID2020 made by bill gates and do you know what covid stands for C - certificate O- of V-vaccination I D -ID Or coincidence, his pate this number for this ID is WO2020060606A1 Wo -world order 2020- this year 060606- the mark of the beast -DEVIL A1- artificial intelligence This is the social scoring system They are putting in place check out https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WGbYHJcMbz8&noapp=1 https://youtu.be/5ZhVGsh2KZ8 Wake up People " Start your own "tinfoil hat" thread mate . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone not think it is weird that bill gates owns the world health organisation, he also owns covid 19 man made disease, this has been patented same way aids sars an Ebola was. Covid 19 Is real disease but it’s been blown up I to a pandemic I will tell you why, the want to get rid of money give everyone vaccines will will ruin there immune system an give everyone a micro chip in the had it’s called ID2020 made by bill gates and do you know what covid stands for C - certificate O- of V-vaccination I D -ID Or coincidence, his pate this number for this ID is WO2020060606A1 Wo -world order 2020- this year 060606- the mark of the beast -DEVIL A1- artificial intelligence This is the social scoring system They are putting in place check out https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WGbYHJcMbz8&noapp=1 https://youtu.be/5ZhVGsh2KZ8 Wake up People " I'd rather go to sleep than believe any of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important." Whatever the media are doing, they aren’t doing it very well as the public don’t trust what they are saying. The important poll of faith then - 66% of people believe the government are dealing with covid19 “very” or “somewhat” well. Today’s government bashing story, just like last weekends piece, just examples why there is a massive distrust of the media reporting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
) events and such, then reporting to the govt. The issue then becomes has Cummings been invited to attend by said group, has he been asked to attend by No 10 and the group have said "yes, no problem" or has he attended despite said group saying no.
The first 2....no problems at all.
The last one......then their independence goes straight down the crapper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important. Whatever the media are doing, they aren’t doing it very well as the public don’t trust what they are saying. The important poll of faith then - 66% of people believe the government are dealing with covid19 “very” or “somewhat” well. Today’s government bashing story, just like last weekends piece, just examples why there is a massive distrust of the media reporting. " It’s so strange to me that intelligent people can’t see through this shower of a government. Cummings and his Cambridge Analytica antics. Raab and Patel (amongst others) who put their name to a book that labels British workers as lazy and talk about breaking up the NHS. Patel sacked for going behind the former PM’s back, then gets a job in cabinet. Then Boris, the crown prince of fuck ups.....the bridge that never was....swore blind he wouldn’t cut the fire service as mayor, did just that........would lay down in front of the bulldozers in front of Heathrow, wasn’t there........Sacked for lying when he was a journalist......countless fuck ups as foreign secretary. ..... the list could go on forever. I find it really disturbing that, whatever your political stripe, you can’t call out shit when it’s shit. Articles that support your team must be true. Articles that point out the flaws are lies(even when printed by the papers who have supported your team in the past). We are in truly extraordinary times.......it’s almost an in enlightenment.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important. Whatever the media are doing, they aren’t doing it very well as the public don’t trust what they are saying. The important poll of faith then - 66% of people believe the government are dealing with covid19 “very” or “somewhat” well. Today’s government bashing story, just like last weekends piece, just examples why there is a massive distrust of the media reporting. It’s so strange to me that intelligent people can’t see through this shower of a government. Cummings and his Cambridge Analytica antics. Raab and Patel (amongst others) who put their name to a book that labels British workers as lazy and talk about breaking up the NHS. Patel sacked for going behind the former PM’s back, then gets a job in cabinet. Then Boris, the crown prince of fuck ups.....the bridge that never was....swore blind he wouldn’t cut the fire service as mayor, did just that........would lay down in front of the bulldozers in front of Heathrow, wasn’t there........Sacked for lying when he was a journalist......countless fuck ups as foreign secretary. ..... the list could go on forever. I find it really disturbing that, whatever your political stripe, you can’t call out shit when it’s shit. Articles that support your team must be true. Articles that point out the flaws are lies(even when printed by the papers who have supported your team in the past). We are in truly extraordinary times.......it’s almost an in enlightenment.." 
Whenever I want a reminder of what people will swallow, a few minutes on Fabs is enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do" Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? " YouGov for SkyNews | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact being he attended meetings, as any government chief advisor is entitled to and expected to. End of story" Except the previous head of SAGE and the previous cabinet officer minister said they had never heard of a special advisor doing it before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? YouGov for SkyNews " Ta.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It’s so strange to me that intelligent people can’t see through this shower of a government. Cummings and his Cambridge Analytica antics. Raab and Patel (amongst others) who put their name to a book that labels British workers as lazy and talk about breaking up the NHS. Patel sacked for going behind the former PM’s back, then gets a job in cabinet. Then Boris, the crown prince of fuck ups.....the bridge that never was....swore blind he wouldn’t cut the fire service as mayor, did just that........would lay down in front of the bulldozers in front of Heathrow, wasn’t there........Sacked for lying when he was a journalist......countless fuck ups as foreign secretary. ..... the list could go on forever. I find it really disturbing that, whatever your political stripe, you can’t call out shit when it’s shit. Articles that support your team must be true. Articles that point out the flaws are lies(even when printed by the papers who have supported your team in the past). We are in truly extraordinary times.......it’s almost an in enlightenment.." Intelligent people do see through it, it’s just that some don’t care because the lies suit their agenda. Gone are the days when people valued truth and honesty in politics, now they are happy for the government to lie so long as the lie suits them. And that is far scarier than them not seeing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do" In a recent poll researching why polls never add up to 100%, 59% agreed, 34% didn’t agree and 19% weren’t sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do In a recent poll researching why polls never add up to 100%, 59% agreed, 34% didn’t agree and 19% weren’t sure. " 10% didn't give a shit  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact being he attended meetings, as any government chief advisor is entitled to and expected to. End of story Except the previous head of SAGE and the previous cabinet officer minister said they had never heard of a special advisor doing it before." Funny that because Nick Clegg’s advisor Nick Sorene has come out and said he attended SAGE meetings at the time of Swine Flu | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact being he attended meetings, as any government chief advisor is entitled to and expected to. End of story Except the previous head of SAGE and the previous cabinet officer minister said they had never heard of a special advisor doing it before. Funny that because Nick Clegg’s advisor Nick Sorene has come out and said he attended SAGE meetings at the time of Swine Flu" *James* not Nick Sorene | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important. Whatever the media are doing, they aren’t doing it very well as the public don’t trust what they are saying. The important poll of faith then - 66% of people believe the government are dealing with covid19 “very” or “somewhat” well. Today’s government bashing story, just like last weekends piece, just examples why there is a massive distrust of the media reporting. " Pointing out the gmnt have,lets me kind,not been ebtiteoy faultless,is hardly gmnt bashing. In a democracy it's the medias job to hold the gmnt to account. Where did this poll come from?who commissioned it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important. Whatever the media are doing, they aren’t doing it very well as the public don’t trust what they are saying. The important poll of faith then - 66% of people believe the government are dealing with covid19 “very” or “somewhat” well. Today’s government bashing story, just like last weekends piece, just examples why there is a massive distrust of the media reporting. Pointing out the gmnt have,lets me kind,not been ebtiteoy faultless,is hardly gmnt bashing. In a democracy it's the medias job to hold the gmnt to account. Where did this poll come from?who commissioned it?" Scrub my last question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important. Whatever the media are doing, they aren’t doing it very well as the public don’t trust what they are saying. The important poll of faith then - 66% of people believe the government are dealing with covid19 “very” or “somewhat” well. Today’s government bashing story, just like last weekends piece, just examples why there is a massive distrust of the media reporting. It’s so strange to me that intelligent people can’t see through this shower of a government. Cummings and his Cambridge Analytica antics. Raab and Patel (amongst others) who put their name to a book that labels British workers as lazy and talk about breaking up the NHS. Patel sacked for going behind the former PM’s back, then gets a job in cabinet. Then Boris, the crown prince of fuck ups.....the bridge that never was....swore blind he wouldn’t cut the fire service as mayor, did just that........would lay down in front of the bulldozers in front of Heathrow, wasn’t there........Sacked for lying when he was a journalist......countless fuck ups as foreign secretary. ..... the list could go on forever. I find it really disturbing that, whatever your political stripe, you can’t call out shit when it’s shit. Articles that support your team must be true. Articles that point out the flaws are lies(even when printed by the papers who have supported your team in the past). We are in truly extraordinary times.......it’s almost an in enlightenment.." Tribalism to the extent that normal intelligent people are happy to suspend any objective reasoning when it's 'their side' in question.. It's the dream scenario for the manipulators.. It's a bit frightening.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? YouGov for SkyNews " Surprised they made the results public, suppose the saying of don't ask as you may not like answer to the question went out the window on that one.. An honest reflective media organisation, who knew eh..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? YouGov for SkyNews Surprised they made the results public, suppose the saying of don't ask as you may not like answer to the question went out the window on that one.. An honest reflective media organisation, who knew eh.. " agree
kind of an odd scenario whereby a news outlet releases a poll that says the news they report isn’t trusted by the public
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? YouGov for SkyNews Surprised they made the results public, suppose the saying of don't ask as you may not like answer to the question went out the window on that one.. An honest reflective media organisation, who knew eh..
agree
kind of an odd scenario whereby a news outlet releases a poll that says the news they report isn’t trusted by the public
"Hiding something..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? YouGov for SkyNews Surprised they made the results public, suppose the saying of don't ask as you may not like answer to the question went out the window on that one.. An honest reflective media organisation, who knew eh..
agree
kind of an odd scenario whereby a news outlet releases a poll that says the news they report isn’t trusted by the public
Hiding something..
"Enhancing their credibility ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? YouGov for SkyNews Surprised they made the results public, suppose the saying of don't ask as you may not like answer to the question went out the window on that one.. An honest reflective media organisation, who knew eh..
agree
kind of an odd scenario whereby a news outlet releases a poll that says the news they report isn’t trusted by the public
Hiding something..
Enhancing their credibility ..."We are 8% more trustworthy than the print types.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Paid for by whom and which polling organisation please? YouGov for SkyNews Surprised they made the results public, suppose the saying of don't ask as you may not like answer to the question went out the window on that one.. An honest reflective media organisation, who knew eh..
agree
kind of an odd scenario whereby a news outlet releases a poll that says the news they report isn’t trusted by the public
Hiding something..
Enhancing their credibility ...
We are 8% more trustworthy than the print types.. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm having a trump moment here, whats the story? The government have always said they take advice regarding its strategiesYou can be sure that the right would have gone ballistic if Alistair Campbell had interfered in a process of scientific appraisal of evidence and advising government - and they did over Iraq.... At least Campbell had actually done something in his career, instead of hanging round the family nightclub and pretending he was head honcho when secretly all the staff and bouncers despised him like Cummings. " Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do In a recent poll researching why polls never add up to 100%, 59% agreed, 34% didn’t agree and 19% weren’t sure. 10% didn't give a shit "And the other 5000% who saw someone conducting a survey and walked straight past. Crickets in a cow field... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats..." Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do" Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly "Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m absolutely sure that if the Guardian headline had read ‘no government representative attends SAGE meetings’, the same people who think they have to be appalled by today’s headlines would be equally apoplectic" No they really wouldn't Sage is made up of scientific professionals. Cummings does not qualify as such. Its perfectly legitimate to ask why he is attendance (especially taking into account his previous "alledged"contributions) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ?" I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis "Standard defence. Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.?" Answer the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis "It's bad enough him and his type being there, it's atrocious that the government is not being transparent, hiding the committee membership, their output and advice as well as what the government plans are. They're not doing a good job, which prompts the need for transparency. If this was a dictatorship, mired in secrecy and an authoritarian control of the people, it might be expected. This is not and they serve us, the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question " The piece I read in the guardian said sage was independent. I assumed a scientific body would be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
It's bad enough him and his type being there, it's atrocious that the government is not being transparent, hiding the committee membership, their output and advice as well as what the government plans are. They're not doing a good job, which prompts the need for transparency. If this was a dictatorship, mired in secrecy and an authoritarian control of the people, it might be expected. This is not and they serve us, the people. "Chief Scientific Advisor has said the membership and meeting details will be released when the pandemic has been dealt with . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
It's bad enough him and his type being there, it's atrocious that the government is not being transparent, hiding the committee membership, their output and advice as well as what the government plans are. They're not doing a good job, which prompts the need for transparency. If this was a dictatorship, mired in secrecy and an authoritarian control of the people, it might be expected. This is not and they serve us, the people. "If there had to be a political presence I would have thought it be the health minister Not a spin doctor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question " SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question The piece I read in the guardian said sage was independent. I assumed a scientific body would be." The Guardian said it, so it is correct? Details about SAGE are available from Gov.uk Decide for yourself what SAGE is and how it works | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy." That sounds pretty independent to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question The piece I read in the guardian said sage was independent. I assumed a scientific body would be. The Guardian said it, so it is correct? Details about SAGE are available from Gov.uk Decide for yourself what SAGE is and how it works " See post above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy."
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me." Straight from the GOV.UK website | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question The piece I read in the guardian said sage was independent. I assumed a scientific body would be. The Guardian said it, so it is correct? Details about SAGE are available from Gov.uk Decide for yourself what SAGE is and how it works See post above." You didn’t read the last sentence of my reply did you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
It's bad enough him and his type being there, it's atrocious that the government is not being transparent, hiding the committee membership, their output and advice as well as what the government plans are. They're not doing a good job, which prompts the need for transparency. If this was a dictatorship, mired in secrecy and an authoritarian control of the people, it might be expected. This is not and they serve us, the people. "Ok, I'll take that as a stand alone comment I guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me." Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. " Exactly, there is no valid reason for him to be there , it is obvious from his actions that he can and is allowed to do whatever he wants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. " Have another look at gov.uk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk " I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? " I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this . "The thread is about Cummings being present at the SAGE meetings, if he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
The thread is about Cummings being present at the SAGE meetings, if he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be there "On the website it says experts from gmnt are also invited to attend. It also says it provides scientific recognition to the gmnt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
The thread is about Cummings being present at the SAGE meetings, if he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be there "Even though he's an advisor to the government in the middle of a pandemic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
The thread is about Cummings being present at the SAGE meetings, if he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be there
Even though he's an advisor to the government in the middle of a pandemic?
"Yep, the fact he is an advisor to the government makes it more important that he isn’t there . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this . "From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage: "The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry" Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
"And surely his presence puts into question the impartiality of the body?How can it make purely scientific decisions if its influenced by politics? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
"2 words stand out there, typically and includes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
And surely his presence puts into question the impartiality of the body?How can it make purely scientific decisions if its influenced by politics?"Again, where is the evidence that he has any influence in these meetings? Show me and I'll happily change my mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
2 words stand out there, typically and includes "So, Cummings is a member of SAGE? If he is then there is absolutely no problem with him being present at their meetings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
And surely his presence puts into question the impartiality of the body?How can it make purely scientific decisions if its influenced by politics?
Again, where is the evidence that he has any influence in these meetings? Show me and I'll happily change my mind"Irrelevant, if he isn’t a member of SAGE he should not be there, it really is that simple | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
And surely his presence puts into question the impartiality of the body?How can it make purely scientific decisions if its influenced by politics?
Again, where is the evidence that he has any influence in these meetings? Show me and I'll happily change my mind"They ask a gmnt advisor to attend who has no influence whatsoever? An obvious question springs to mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is his area of expertise?" The government have denied he is a member of SAGE so he shouldn’t be there no matter what | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is his area of expertise? The government have denied he is a member of SAGE so he shouldn’t be there no matter what "Fair enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
And surely his presence puts into question the impartiality of the body?How can it make purely scientific decisions if its influenced by politics?
Again, where is the evidence that he has any influence in these meetings? Show me and I'll happily change my mind"He isn’t a member of SAGE therefore he shouldn’t be there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ?" God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? " Answer the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question " I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
And surely his presence puts into question the impartiality of the body?How can it make purely scientific decisions if its influenced by politics?
Again, where is the evidence that he has any influence in these meetings? Show me and I'll happily change my mind
He isn’t a member of SAGE therefore he shouldn’t be there "Why? It clearly states that attendies 'typically' include experts. It doesnt anywhere say that advisors cant attend It seriously concerns me that this is the kind of petty argument that the left waste so much time engaging in. I urge you (as someone who is also left leaning) to spend your time worrying real issues, not imagined ones | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
And surely his presence puts into question the impartiality of the body?How can it make purely scientific decisions if its influenced by politics?
Again, where is the evidence that he has any influence in these meetings? Show me and I'll happily change my mind
He isn’t a member of SAGE therefore he shouldn’t be there
Why? It clearly states that attendies 'typically' include experts. It doesnt anywhere say that advisors cant attend
It seriously concerns me that this is the kind of petty argument that the left waste so much time engaging in. I urge you (as someone who is also left leaning) to spend your time worrying real issues, not imagined ones"I am not ‘worried’ about it, these are the very simple facts, he isn’t a member of SAGE, he shouldn’t be there tbh I couldn’t care less what he does, after all this is over there will be 1 off 2 scape goats, Boris or Cummings , take your pick | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation "Surely that should be a good starting point - is it a unique event that a ministers advisor attends SAGE ... If it’s happened before then why all the fuss on this occasion ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation
Surely that should be a good starting point - is it a unique event that a ministers advisor attends SAGE ...
If it’s happened before then why all the fuss on this occasion ?"Do you know the answer or are you still looking for the answer? When you find the answer then we can talk about the answer, until then we can’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation
Surely that should be a good starting point - is it a unique event that a ministers advisor attends SAGE ...
If it’s happened before then why all the fuss on this occasion ?
Do you know the answer or are you still looking for the answer? When you find the answer then we can talk about the answer, until then we can’t "Of course the answer is out there ... And would I be asking it if I didn’t already know the answer . You would rather just keep banging at the door of assumption and hearsay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation
Surely that should be a good starting point - is it a unique event that a ministers advisor attends SAGE ...
If it’s happened before then why all the fuss on this occasion ?
Do you know the answer or are you still looking for the answer? When you find the answer then we can talk about the answer, until then we can’t
Of course the answer is out there ...
And would I be asking it if I didn’t already know the answer .
You would rather just keep banging at the door of assumption and hearsay. "There is a clue in the name. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation
Surely that should be a good starting point - is it a unique event that a ministers advisor attends SAGE ...
If it’s happened before then why all the fuss on this occasion ?
Do you know the answer or are you still looking for the answer? When you find the answer then we can talk about the answer, until then we can’t
Of course the answer is out there ...
And would I be asking it if I didn’t already know the answer .
You would rather just keep banging at the door of assumption and hearsay. "Yes, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation
Surely that should be a good starting point - is it a unique event that a ministers advisor attends SAGE ...
If it’s happened before then why all the fuss on this occasion ?
Do you know the answer or are you still looking for the answer? When you find the answer then we can talk about the answer, until then we can’t
Of course the answer is out there ...
And would I be asking it if I didn’t already know the answer .
You would rather just keep banging at the door of assumption and hearsay.
Yes, "Bang away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen this mentioned twice now. Where does it say SAGE is independent ? I didn't realise scientific analysis had a political dimension.? Answer the question SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy. That sounds pretty independent to me. Except where an unelected assistant to the Prime Minister is within it, who is not a specialist scientist, or indeed even a scientist. Have another look at gov.uk I have are you suggesting that Cummings is a member of SAGE? I’ve said nothing about Cummings . I’m suggesting some facts about who and what SAGE is need to be checked - and there is an excellent primary source to do this .
From https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage:
"The membership of SAGE depends on the nature of the emergency but it typically includes leading experts from within government and leading specialists from the fields of academia and industry"
Where and how Mr Cummings in his capacity as a senior advisor to the PM meets the criteria to attend SAGE escapes me.
And surely his presence puts into question the impartiality of the body?How can it make purely scientific decisions if its influenced by politics?
Again, where is the evidence that he has any influence in these meetings? Show me and I'll happily change my mind
He isn’t a member of SAGE therefore he shouldn’t be there
Why? It clearly states that attendies 'typically' include experts. It doesnt anywhere say that advisors cant attend
It seriously concerns me that this is the kind of petty argument that the left waste so much time engaging in. I urge you (as someone who is also left leaning) to spend your time worrying real issues, not imagined ones" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt."So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent'). End of thread! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation
Surely that should be a good starting point - is it a unique event that a ministers advisor attends SAGE ...
If it’s happened before then why all the fuss on this occasion ?
Do you know the answer or are you still looking for the answer? When you find the answer then we can talk about the answer, until then we can’t
Of course the answer is out there ...
And would I be asking it if I didn’t already know the answer .
You would rather just keep banging at the door of assumption and hearsay.
Yes,
Bang away "Will do, just one question (which I hope you can answer) where do I find the door of assumption and hearsay ? Is it next to the door of fact and proof ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!"If he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be at their meetings . End of thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!"Could you maybe answer why it's important that he be at SAGE but not important that Boris be at Cobra?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a unique event that a ministers advisor attended SAGE ? God knows, does it matter? are you now ready to admit that as a none member of SAGE he shouldn’t have been there ? Answer the question I honestly have no idea, and I am certainly not wasting my time googling it, why don’t you give me the answer then tell me why it is relevant to the current situation
Surely that should be a good starting point - is it a unique event that a ministers advisor attends SAGE ...
If it’s happened before then why all the fuss on this occasion ?
Do you know the answer or are you still looking for the answer? When you find the answer then we can talk about the answer, until then we can’t
Of course the answer is out there ...
And would I be asking it if I didn’t already know the answer .
You would rather just keep banging at the door of assumption and hearsay.
Yes,
Bang away
Will do, just one question (which I hope you can answer) where do I find the door of assumption and hearsay ? Is it next to the door of fact and proof ? "Hmmm I’ve offered and pointed to the door of fact and proof and yet you chose not to open it ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!
If he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be at their meetings .
End of thread "Ahhh It would appear you prefer revolving doors ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!"End of thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!
If he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be at their meetings .
End of thread
Ahhh
It would appear you prefer revolving doors ..."It appears you don’t know how to open a door. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!
If he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be at their meetings .
End of thread
Ahhh
It would appear you prefer revolving doors ...
It appears you don’t know how to open a door. "think of this like the Knock Knock game in Takeshi’s Castle ... I’m through to the next round | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!
If he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be at their meetings .
End of thread
Ahhh
It would appear you prefer revolving doors ...
It appears you don’t know how to open a door.
think of this like the Knock Knock game in Takeshi’s Castle ...
I’m through to the next round "You wish, I am afraid you fell in the moat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!
If he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be at their meetings .
End of thread
Ahhh
It would appear you prefer revolving doors ...
It appears you don’t know how to open a door.
think of this like the Knock Knock game in Takeshi’s Castle ...
I’m through to the next round
You wish, I am afraid you fell in the moat "Assumption again... there isn’t a moat in the knock Knock game
Come on .... factual information is there if you look for it ... a bit like SAGE....it’s purpose, membership, who has attended, protocol etc... the facts are there if you want to find them.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence. No, he has had some input in some of the meetings. That forms a major part of the story. And even if he was just present, it may subconsciously affect the ability of the scientists to speak freely. It's not his place to report back - it's for the senior members of Sage to report to the government. " Nobody knows wht goes on inthese meetiings but he is an advisor to the PM any PM would have a man there it is normal practice but people do not like Cummins a point that has no relevance to him being there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe he is attending to report back only has absolutely no influence. No, he has had some input in some of the meetings. That forms a major part of the story. And even if he was just present, it may subconsciously affect the ability of the scientists to speak freely. It's not his place to report back - it's for the senior members of Sage to report to the government. Nobody knows wht goes on inthese meetiings but he is an advisor to the PM any PM would have a man there it is normal practice but people do not like Cummins a point that has no relevance to him being there" There are reasons he is disliked tdf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!
If he isn’t a member of SAGE he shouldn’t be at their meetings .
End of thread
Ahhh
It would appear you prefer revolving doors ...
It appears you don’t know how to open a door.
think of this like the Knock Knock game in Takeshi’s Castle ...
I’m through to the next round
You wish, I am afraid you fell in the moat
Assumption again... there isn’t a moat in the knock Knock game
Come on .... factual information is there if you look for it ... a bit like SAGE....it’s purpose, membership, who has attended, protocol etc... the facts are there if you want to find them.
"Is there? Wow, that is fascinating, so Cummings and his little analyst friend were allowed to go to these meetings ? Would it be rude of me to suggest that you aren’t really a qualified or relevant source of information on this subject? Unless you care to share with me where you got this information from then at present it is just some bollocks written by a man on a fuck site forum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable." Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ?" They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved." And yet we see them up there day after day ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved. And yet we see them up there day after day ..." As with Trump, they don't speak up when he talks about drinking bleach.....so, it happens | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved." Why would these people not have the same discussion with him there? i do not understand your logic.You really think these people give a fuck that hes there or are going to be intimidated by someone who has no power over them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved.Why would these people not have the same discussion with him there? i do not understand your logic.You really think these people give a fuck that hes there or are going to be intimidated by someone who has no power over them?" Then you have absolutely no understanding of human behaviour if you genuinely believe that the Prime Minister's representative being in the room will not change the discussion, particularly if he chooses to voice an opinion. Yes, I do think that they will give a fuck. Out of courtesy to explain to a layman or to not criticise or out of intimidation or coercion. The discussion will be different. The conclusions may be different. The committee recommendations will, regardless, come with a supplementary summary and narrative provided by two people in the room with a political interest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved. And yet we see them up there day after day ..." Actually, their membership was made public. It is not public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-whos-who-on-secret-scientific-group-advising-uk-government-sage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved. And yet we see them up there day after day ... Actually, their membership was made public. It is not public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-whos-who-on-secret-scientific-group-advising-uk-government-sage" Then you would also know the CSA has said the membership will not be disclosed until after the pandemic had passed, and the reason why he will not disclose the detail. We do of course know the membership of the expert groups who feed SAGE | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shocking and unbelievable, just like last weeks Sunday Times was shocking and unbelievable...and nobody has mentioned it since about Tuesday. When all this is analysed there’s nothing to read, again. I appreciate the printed media are short of news and on their arse financially but sensationalising the machinations of government is only further adding to public distrust of them I know, it's awful scrutinizing things isn't it?? Except this isn’t scrutiny, it’s mudslinging Mudsling=facts. That's a new one The fact being he attended meetings, as any government chief advisor is entitled to and expected to. End of story" SAGE has existed for years. Political types have never before attended. That is the fact you are trying to overlook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important. Whatever the media are doing, they aren’t doing it very well as the public don’t trust what they are saying. The important poll of faith then - 66% of people believe the government are dealing with covid19 “very” or “somewhat” well. Today’s government bashing story, just like last weekends piece, just examples why there is a massive distrust of the media reporting. " Just because apparently 2/3rds believe the government is handling this well doesnt mean that the government is doing a good job | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Recent poll speaks volumes: 72% don't trust newspapers on the issue of Coronavirus - 17% do 64% don't trust TV journalists on the issue of Coronavirus - 24% do Journalists and tv are not managing the crises. Completely irrelevant poll. They aren’t managing the covid19 crisis ... we don’t trust what they say about it . Very relevant Some people don't believe what is in the newspapers? Well I'm shocked. It's the gmnt who are guiding us through this crises.apparently.Not the media. Surely it's the faith in the gmnt that's important. Whatever the media are doing, they aren’t doing it very well as the public don’t trust what they are saying. The important poll of faith then - 66% of people believe the government are dealing with covid19 “very” or “somewhat” well. Today’s government bashing story, just like last weekends piece, just examples why there is a massive distrust of the media reporting. It’s so strange to me that intelligent people can’t see through this shower of a government. Cummings and his Cambridge Analytica antics. Raab and Patel (amongst others) who put their name to a book that labels British workers as lazy and talk about breaking up the NHS. Patel sacked for going behind the former PM’s back, then gets a job in cabinet. Then Boris, the crown prince of fuck ups.....the bridge that never was....swore blind he wouldn’t cut the fire service as mayor, did just that........would lay down in front of the bulldozers in front of Heathrow, wasn’t there........Sacked for lying when he was a journalist......countless fuck ups as foreign secretary. ..... the list could go on forever. I find it really disturbing that, whatever your political stripe, you can’t call out shit when it’s shit. Articles that support your team must be true. Articles that point out the flaws are lies(even when printed by the papers who have supported your team in the past). We are in truly extraordinary times.......it’s almost an in enlightenment.." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved. And yet we see them up there day after day ... Actually, their membership was made public. It is not public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-whos-who-on-secret-scientific-group-advising-uk-government-sage Then you would also know the CSA has said the membership will not be disclosed until after the pandemic had passed, and the reason why he will not disclose the detail. We do of course know the membership of the expert groups who feed SAGE" The article names the attendees due to a leaked document. What point are you making? The government is saying that Cummings was not "on the committee" but did attend the meetings. Are you denying this? Is it alright for two political representatives to attend the meetings of an independent group? Do you think that they will not change how the group functions due to the fact that they are there? Do you think that Cummings and Warner will have not have even more influence when the results of the advice are discussed with the politicians making the decisions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved. And yet we see them up there day after day ... Actually, their membership was made public. It is not public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-whos-who-on-secret-scientific-group-advising-uk-government-sage Then you would also know the CSA has said the membership will not be disclosed until after the pandemic had passed, and the reason why he will not disclose the detail. We do of course know the membership of the expert groups who feed SAGE The article names the attendees due to a leaked document. What point are you making? The government is saying that Cummings was not "on the committee" but did attend the meetings. Are you denying this? Is it alright for two political representatives to attend the meetings of an independent group? Do you think that they will not change how the group functions due to the fact that they are there? Do you think that Cummings and Warner will have not have even more influence when the results of the advice are discussed with the politicians making the decisions? " Read the thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved. And yet we see them up there day after day ... Actually, their membership was made public. It is not public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-whos-who-on-secret-scientific-group-advising-uk-government-sage Then you would also know the CSA has said the membership will not be disclosed until after the pandemic had passed, and the reason why he will not disclose the detail. We do of course know the membership of the expert groups who feed SAGE The article names the attendees due to a leaked document. What point are you making? The government is saying that Cummings was not "on the committee" but did attend the meetings. Are you denying this? Is it alright for two political representatives to attend the meetings of an independent group? Do you think that they will not change how the group functions due to the fact that they are there? Do you think that Cummings and Warner will have not have even more influence when the results of the advice are discussed with the politicians making the decisions? Read the thread" Don't answer then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This puts the lie to "following the scientific advice". The panel is is not sitting independently. It has political advisors in the room. The discussion will not be the same as if they were not. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would the scientists put their name to something they are not happy with? Chief science advisor and chief medical advisor up there on the briefing day after day ? They are not putting their name to anything. That's one of the reasons the members are usually not named, so that their is no external influence. You understand that, right? The meeting will be different with political advisors in the room, particularly those of the temperament of Cummings. Not someone who sits quietly in the corner. Still not appropriate even if he were. He is a surrogate for the Prime Minister in that room. They absolutely will not have the same discussion being observed and certainly not if he is involved. And yet we see them up there day after day ... Actually, their membership was made public. It is not public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-whos-who-on-secret-scientific-group-advising-uk-government-sage Then you would also know the CSA has said the membership will not be disclosed until after the pandemic had passed, and the reason why he will not disclose the detail. We do of course know the membership of the expert groups who feed SAGE The article names the attendees due to a leaked document. What point are you making? The government is saying that Cummings was not "on the committee" but did attend the meetings. Are you denying this? Is it alright for two political representatives to attend the meetings of an independent group? Do you think that they will not change how the group functions due to the fact that they are there? Do you think that Cummings and Warner will have not have even more influence when the results of the advice are discussed with the politicians making the decisions? Read the thread Don't answer then "Nothing to answer - it’s a vastly inflated story, with absolutely no evidence . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Effective emergency management and informed decision-making relies upon Ministers having access to the best available advice in a timely fashion. To ensure the full range of issues are considered advice needs to stem from a range of disciplines, including the scientific, technical, economic and legal. At the UK level the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) is responsible for coordinating and peer reviewing, as far as possible, scientific and technical advice to inform decision-making." This is from the document that defines the function of SAGE. This is peer review not political review. That should happen outside the room in a political meeting using various sets of independently created data. The COBRA meeting is where all of the available information is used to make decisions. That is the appropriate place for elected ministers and advisors with no specialist knowledge as they are making a broad political decision. Not having an active or passive influence at the point where data is presented. This is exactly the same as the Iraq war weapons of mass destruction dossier. The neutral data was politicised before presentation except at this stage two men whose job it is to manipulate information can do so even before COBRA sees it and can influence it's interpretation within the meeting. Do you really not see how this is messed up? The advisors have more power than the specialists or the politicians but they are neither elected nor work within a bureaucratic structure like normal employees not is there a mechanism to balance their power except the whim of the Prime Minister. But Sage participants told the newspaper that Mr Cummings and Mr Warner had been actively participating in discussions rather than observing, raising questions about the impartiality of the advice given to ministers. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-government-science-dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-a9483396.html 'Sir David King, a former government scientific adviser, said he was “shocked” to discover political advisers were involved in the meetings. “If you are giving science advice, your advice should be free of any political bias. That is just so critically important,” he told The Guardian. Sir David later tweeted: “I don’t say this lightly but if this report is accurate (which I have no reason to doubt) it marries with all of my worst fears. This is simply unimaginable, an egregious abuse SAGE membership the govt must answer.”' No 10 trying to claim a distinction between "attending" and being a "member" is the slipperiest of political excuses. This is despite No 10 claiming that '“Sage provides independent scientific advice to the government. Political advisers have no role in this."' Then trying to discredit the press rather than answer the accusation is from the Trump playbook." You just don’t get it - implementing whatever recommendations SAGE puts forward becomes a political decision and process. As expert as the scientists are their role is to advise the government who then deliver. It is only right that different options and consequences are discussed in any strategic planning meeting...let alone something as serious as this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Effective emergency management and informed decision-making relies upon Ministers having access to the best available advice in a timely fashion. To ensure the full range of issues are considered advice needs to stem from a range of disciplines, including the scientific, technical, economic and legal. At the UK level the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) is responsible for coordinating and peer reviewing, as far as possible, scientific and technical advice to inform decision-making." This is from the document that defines the function of SAGE. This is peer review not political review. That should happen outside the room in a political meeting using various sets of independently created data. The COBRA meeting is where all of the available information is used to make decisions. That is the appropriate place for elected ministers and advisors with no specialist knowledge as they are making a broad political decision. Not having an active or passive influence at the point where data is presented. This is exactly the same as the Iraq war weapons of mass destruction dossier. The neutral data was politicised before presentation except at this stage two men whose job it is to manipulate information can do so even before COBRA sees it and can influence it's interpretation within the meeting. Do you really not see how this is messed up? The advisors have more power than the specialists or the politicians but they are neither elected nor work within a bureaucratic structure like normal employees not is there a mechanism to balance their power except the whim of the Prime Minister. But Sage participants told the newspaper that Mr Cummings and Mr Warner had been actively participating in discussions rather than observing, raising questions about the impartiality of the advice given to ministers. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-government-science-dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-a9483396.html 'Sir David King, a former government scientific adviser, said he was “shocked” to discover political advisers were involved in the meetings. “If you are giving science advice, your advice should be free of any political bias. That is just so critically important,” he told The Guardian. Sir David later tweeted: “I don’t say this lightly but if this report is accurate (which I have no reason to doubt) it marries with all of my worst fears. This is simply unimaginable, an egregious abuse SAGE membership the govt must answer.”' No 10 trying to claim a distinction between "attending" and being a "member" is the slipperiest of political excuses. This is despite No 10 claiming that '“Sage provides independent scientific advice to the government. Political advisers have no role in this."' Then trying to discredit the press rather than answer the accusation is from the Trump playbook. You just don’t get it - implementing whatever recommendations SAGE puts forward becomes a political decision and process. As expert as the scientists are their role is to advise the government who then deliver. It is only right that different options and consequences are discussed in any strategic planning meeting...let alone something as serious as this. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No evidence? The government you are defending have admitted they were both present at meetings and even provided input. What other evidence are you looking for? Do you need a picture of Cummings torturing baby kittens before you'll admit he might be a little bit out of order?" They probably dont like cats anyhow.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, say we had had a Labour government, I'm absolutely those who are all for Cummings being there would be equally happy for Seumas Milne to have been at Sage? Oh, I very much doubt it, there would be outrage. The typical double standards here.....John Bercow, bullying allegations - bully, wants his own way, obnoxious. Priti Patel, bullying allegations - strong leader, getting things done, This is the point. Neither is good, but too many people see their own side being shitbags, ignore it and just scream at the other side. Until we get out of this mindset, we are fucked" I've voted for labour since 1997 and I have no issue with him being there | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The BBC have plumbed new depths during this crisis Talk about making a story from nothing. Yet again That's one way of looking at it, or, you just don't like to think that an unelected bureaucrat is running the country. Funny, I thought we hated unelected bureaucrats... Hes an adviser to the Prime Minister, who is elected. I'm quite happy for an adviser to be there. I can only think that the people making a big deal of this have nothing better to do Its an independent scientific committee and is compromised if a government advisor is influencing it rather than observing it. Cummings does not like democracy and circumvents it regularly so if you are happy for him and his odious little pal to influence the committee without any oversight then you might as well stick to wanking yourself silly
Show me one piece of evidence that states he's influencing the committee and you may have the ghost of a point. Until then, you don't
Also you do realise that advisors attend these meetings on a regular basis
Standard defence.
Show me 1 piece of evidence he didnt.
So there we have it. Guilty until proven innocent (even though the article states he didn't influence anything so my post should read 'guilty although proven innocent').
End of thread!
End of thread"End of thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Effective emergency management and informed decision-making relies upon Ministers having access to the best available advice in a timely fashion. To ensure the full range of issues are considered advice needs to stem from a range of disciplines, including the scientific, technical, economic and legal. At the UK level the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) is responsible for coordinating and peer reviewing, as far as possible, scientific and technical advice to inform decision-making." This is from the document that defines the function of SAGE. This is peer review not political review. That should happen outside the room in a political meeting using various sets of independently created data. The COBRA meeting is where all of the available information is used to make decisions. That is the appropriate place for elected ministers and advisors with no specialist knowledge as they are making a broad political decision. Not having an active or passive influence at the point where data is presented. This is exactly the same as the Iraq war weapons of mass destruction dossier. The neutral data was politicised before presentation except at this stage two men whose job it is to manipulate information can do so even before COBRA sees it and can influence it's interpretation within the meeting. Do you really not see how this is messed up? The advisors have more power than the specialists or the politicians but they are neither elected nor work within a bureaucratic structure like normal employees not is there a mechanism to balance their power except the whim of the Prime Minister. But Sage participants told the newspaper that Mr Cummings and Mr Warner had been actively participating in discussions rather than observing, raising questions about the impartiality of the advice given to ministers. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-government-science-dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-a9483396.html 'Sir David King, a former government scientific adviser, said he was “shocked” to discover political advisers were involved in the meetings. “If you are giving science advice, your advice should be free of any political bias. That is just so critically important,” he told The Guardian. Sir David later tweeted: “I don’t say this lightly but if this report is accurate (which I have no reason to doubt) it marries with all of my worst fears. This is simply unimaginable, an egregious abuse SAGE membership the govt must answer.”' No 10 trying to claim a distinction between "attending" and being a "member" is the slipperiest of political excuses. This is despite No 10 claiming that '“Sage provides independent scientific advice to the government. Political advisers have no role in this."' Then trying to discredit the press rather than answer the accusation is from the Trump playbook. You just don’t get it - implementing whatever recommendations SAGE puts forward becomes a political decision and process. As expert as the scientists are their role is to advise the government who then deliver. It is only right that different options and consequences are discussed in any strategic planning meeting...let alone something as serious as this. " I "don't get it"? You have just paraphrased what I wrote what completely missing the point 
The political decision should be made at the end of the process using unbiased data not information already contaminated with political influence.
Cummings and his data manipulating friend should not be involved in the interpretation of the information and the decisions taken about how it is used.
This is not "following the science" if the science has been politically influenced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
