91热爆

DO AN INFINITE NUMBER OF MONKEYS OWE SHAKESPEARE AN APOLOGY FOR TYPOS?

Who appointed the health ministers in question? Were they appointed for medical (and worldly) acumen or for brown-nosing up from mediocre beginnings to high office?

Politics is the one 'profession' where 'no previous experience necessary' for high office. Miliband D was our climate man before he instantly became an expert on matters foreign. The only qualification such individuals have in abundance is gall. No wonder we go from cock-up to cock-up.

All together: "On the Good Ship Lollypop . . ."

Barrie (#1) You make a very good point here which I fear will go unappreciated by some. The Civil Service has Generalists and Specialists, and whilst getting on for two decades ago these, traditionally at odds with one another, groups were integrated via a unified grading scheme, the reality is still that those who took the Generalst Administrator route tend to believe they don't need to know much that is technical (much like the politicians hey come into contact with). It's the old CP Snow Two Cultures problem, and it has had severe repercussions. We live in a technical world where Administrators need to know what they are talking about far more so than they did in the days when Manadarins could get by with a classics/arts education and be groomed in management skills. This just isn't the case any more, yet there's still a division which has frequently been remarked upon in Science and Technology Parliamentary Committees. What happened to David Kelly was a sad example of just how badly wrong it often goes, and yet I fear that many of those involved just don't see scope or nature of the problem as they translate what they are told... ICT systems are a clear example of how badly this goes, as the Private Sector runs rings around the Generalists.

post office privatisation

privatisation of strategic services is a pre credit crunch idea. who now believes the market is the best arbiter of anything?

the model they should use is the john lewis model or the co-op model. The co-op model only became unfashionable because people with short term credit could out compete them and turn building societies into banks etc.

so why do the govt still have the false belief the market is the best judge on use of resources. It is unjust and irrational to keep believing in it.

Soros says the markets are biased and lack full information which is why they have boom and busts.

why place strategic services in that arena? why not use the co-op or john lewis model. That has proven to work and be robust.

someone should ask mandy why, in the face of the evidence, he believes the market is the best place for strategic services and not one of the other not for profit models proven to work?

these govt false beliefs are dragons that need to slain before they do more damage to our society. it looks like they still don't understand how belief in markets as 'best judge' has led us to bankruptcy.

Barrie Post 1 Spot On.
JJ Post 2 Spot on apart from Dr D Kelly that Sad inSinIntent was just that. They skinned that good man alive and left him 2 die.
In the words of taggart it was Murrder most foul. 91热爆 Take Note ie Blair Brown Cambell

I Wont forget it and Aye will make sure the 3 clown amiGO's wont either. oot

Excellent Newsnight tonight - particularly on the contaminated blood story (Susan's report and and the studio debate by Jeremy ) and the studio debate on Slumdog Millionaire too.

HEALTH MINISTER IS AS HEALTH MINISTER DOES?

I hear Kenneth Clarke did not 'engage' with the issue 'of infected Factor 8' when he was Health Minister. How powerfully that resonates with my post of 20 Jan 2009 (regarding tobacco income) duplicated below:

ALL THE TALENTS

My view is that a person who can profit - KNOWINGLY - from the weakness/addiction/misery/death of others, and defend it dismissively as 'people enacting free will', is surely likely to apply a SIMILAR MANNER OF THINKING to other - as yet unknown - situations.

To my mind, it is not good to hire a pyromaniac as a baby-sitter, regardless of their proven ability in the latter role, and even having high certification.

My constant credo is that the fundamental psychology of managers, ultimately shapes management (governance).

privatisation means nationalising all the debts and privatising all the good bits, i.e. profits, binning pensions and getting rid off the awkward squad, in other words all that has brought this country to it's knees over the last twenty years. Why does Mandy love it? Because he doesn't have to deal with the bruvvers as they are long gone and the PFI's that made the Underground the most expensive in Europe can continue to churn out massive profits for the chosen few while the rest of us pick up the tab for the West coast main line etc., funny that, a safe haven for the banks i.e. nationalisation or at least seventy per cent of it..no problem but an organisation like the post office that requires an input of funds to help it over now has the vultures circling because Mandy gives them the green light. No wonder there is massive opposition on the backbenches....

Hemophiliac victims. It was such a good report but....


The NHS has been found out letting us down again! And by a noble group of people who gave their time free to work on the report. So the NHS is not 'The best in the world' after all!

I was left wondering where The Lancet and the doctors' groups were on all this terrible manslaughter at the time (and now). Why did Newsnight not ask?
Does anyone one reading this know the answer?
We learned that Ireland has at least supported victims with money and that the French prosecuted their politicians for manslaughter. It would have been interesting to know more about the comparisons in Europe for real perspective - Same as the absolute ongoing scandal with hospital infections in NHS today when NHS chooses on grounds of cost (拢10) not test pre admittance so that carriers can be isolated as is done in other comparable health systems in EU. This too is manslaughter. Please return to hospital infections with this fact in mind. Thanks

I WOULDN'T START FROM HERE

Those who can compute Britain's malaise, thus having some recourse to remedy, are not those who riot. Those who riot (and probably will, shortly) do so from simple stimuli, with no goal except catharsis (however brief). Those who run our lives, ignore, crush or, physically succumb to rioting; and the mistakes are repeated.


"The bulldogs all have rubber teeth . . ." Nice to be back at #1. No puncture-marks, saliva or tears! (I think I know where I went wrong - duly chastened.)

M-ENDACIOUS P-UPPETS

鈥淚f you would speak with me, first define your terms.鈥� (Voltaire)

Mendacious: Prone to lying at any time.

Puppet: A person whose own being is over-ridden.

Faustian Pact: The exchange of integrity for power.

Once upon a time, political parties had ideals (although they struggled to achieve broader altruism). They were known to stick to core beliefs and 鈥済o down with the ship鈥�. All that has gone. Today, the 鈥減arties of power鈥� will move their credo to where the votes are 鈥� changing the bait to match the tastes of poor fish - the voters.


POWER CORRUPTS.

The loss of integrity, both in parties and in party-politicians, is absolute. Individual stirrings of conscience at blatant deception, personally enacted, are suppressed in the name of THE PARTY 鈥� an archetypal Faustian Pact.

By the time the Blair dazzle had faded, many were wary of what was to come. Captain Brown came 鈥� with his moral compass 鈥� and proceeded to collide with every reef, jetty and sandbank in the Seven Seas of governance; not Mr Bean but Mr Bump. The deceit was palpable 鈥� we became ANGRY about deception. But New Labour鈥檚 carefully schooled mouthpieces insist on telling us that, actually, we are FRIGHTENED about the economy, and they understand our FEAR. Thus is our anger belittled and goes disingenuously un-addressed. We are misguided children.
ANGER at New Labour/Blair/Brown has, by reaction, improved the Tory/Cameron fortunes, yet their dissemblers, in turn, assure us we are actually DELIGHTED with golden Tory promise. Spin is alive and 鈥渟ick-well鈥� in Britain 鈥� 1984 is upon us.

There you have the whole tawdry sham in a nutshell.

re post 8. Sorry for the typo.
I did of course mean "拢10 per test" that the NHS won't pay for for pre-admission testing which would enable infection carrying patients to be isolated so as infections do not spread. This test is used in private hospitals here and State hospitals in Europe. UK is the worst -as usual.

Saw this and thought of JJ:

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.



It's all been said here a hundred times before, but it's worth saying again that the reason you peddle your discredited ideas here is because no credible scientific community would support them for a second. When you can't even convince a bunch of "amateurs", isn't it time to throw in the towel?

I can predict the response. Carry on.

WHAT A CARRY ON (#12)

Peer review is biased (heavily) to the current paradigm (you know that.)

By way of illustration: there is currently an alternative cosmology, simply termed: The Electric Universe.
It started in the 50s with a psychiatrist/polymath: Immanuel Velikovsky.
It has Nobel scholarship to its name; but at the outset Velikovsky was refused print in journals, and even dropped by his first (book) publisher. An astronomer (Halton Arp) had his 'telescope time' curtailed for 'seeing the wrong things' The 'Peer Review' community behaved abominably.

There is error here on all sides; some admitted, some not (not to mention unknown unknowns) - error of attitude.

Watch the skies.

RadiantPoachedEgg (#12) "no credible scientific community would support them for a second."

Except, as has been linked here many times now as concrete evidence to the contrary (as diligent readers will know), it is published in reputable journals as are of the egregious politics (see link for link to pdf). Even the 91热爆 Moral Maze well over a year ago made short work of those who take your line.

It seems that people like yourself are just unable/unwilling to grasp this.

You are, quite literally, and you are in fact misleading others - why?

1,800 haemophiliacs have suffered serious health and social issues and yet the government seems unable to identify who ordered papers to be destroyed?

If thats possible then there must surely be the inevitable "change to procedures" to make sure that people are culpable.

People have and will die and its not right.

RadiantPoachedEgg (#12)

Something for you and the lonely gangofone to ponder:

"The answers given by Hume to the logical and psychological problems of induction lead immediately to an irrationalist conclusion. According to Hume, all our knowledge, especially all our scientific knowledge, is just irrational habit or custom, and it is rationally totally indefensible.

Hume himself thought of this as a form of scepticism; but it was rather, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, an unintended surrender to irrationalism. It is an amazing fact that a peerless critical genius, one of the most rational minds of all ages, not only came to disbelieve in reason, but became a champion of unreason, of irrationalism.

Nobody has felt this paradox more strongly than Bertrand Russell, an admirer and, in many respects, even a late disciple of Hume. Thus in the Hume chapter in A History of Western Philosophy, published in 1946, Russell says about Hume's treatment of induction: 'Hume's philosophy ... represents the bankruptcy of eighteenth-century reasonableness' and, 'It is therefore important to discover whether there is any answer to Hume within a philosophy that is wholly or mainly empirical. If not, there is no intellectual difference begins sanity and insanity. The lunatic who believes that he is a poached egg is to be condemned solely on the ground that he is in a minority....'

Russell goes on to assert that if induction (or the principle of induction) is rejected, 'every attempt to arrive at general scientific laws from particular observations is fallacious, and Hume's scepticism is inescapable for an empiricist.'

And Russell sums up his view of the situation created by the clash between Hume's two answers, by the following dramatic remark:

#12 RadiantPoachedEgg

I agree utterly.

Genetic variation is greater with races than between races. There is no basis for race "realism".

They neglected to mention that mainstream scientists are "all Jews" and far right scientists are unable to get jobs - because their science is blinded by their political hysteria?

The kind of statistics provided on this page previously included highly dubious statistics about Jewish survival rates in the 30's with regard to the Holocaust (they are hazy about that as Hitler did "good and bad things"). Of course everybody knows that there are no reliable statistics from that period and that the Holocaust happened.

Hitler (who was quite peculiar and used to have "drinking" sessions with his niece) used to say that the masses would believe the big lie and not the little lie. Think he burnt down the Reichstag that night.

Anyway even Hitler, murderous and evil as he was, did not suggest the masses would believe the stupid lie.

But the posters above seem obsessed with the idea that if they show they are "bright" then people will be persuaded by their arguments.

But to the contrary people knew that Mengele and the other villains of the time were bright and whilst they post on things like race "realism" and eugenics they will probably motivate many to make sure they never get anywhere near power.

They just blight the page from spite as they must know they are never going to persuade anybody.

For example there are about 10000 years of cumulative research into climate change and 99% of those scientists believe that climate change is happening and is due to human impact.

barriesingleton did a bit of R&D and on that basis feels his gut instinct that these people make mistakes holds true. Nobody needs to do a peer review.

Its the absolute "rigour" of their argument which stuns the mind.

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK

For a few years (they don't live long) there was a Crow round here who would pretend to be a Seagull.
I think I was the only person to notice.

Is sanity bunk?

#16 JadedJean

Do you think Popper or Hume or anybody without a twisted psyche would lend their support to your views?

The Baby P batterer , the Tickenham Green murderer, the recent paedophile and would be nail bomber are all people who might and in the last year were revealed to hold similar views to you with regard to Hitler. The far right glitterati!

What does that say?

Why won't people listen to you?

Tsch, crazy huh!

I don't post to be popular but I do know that my views on this matter are supported by around 99% of voters who reject your appalling views. To me thats UKIP, Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, Greens, Monster raving Loony Party and undecideds.

To you they are just addled "anarchists and Trotskyites" who want to paint your hero Hitler "as darkly as possible for part political reasons". They are probably "all Jews".

You are almost a parody of yourself at times. You sit up all night and then write the hideous things that you do and you genuinely believe that you can order people to listen.

Democracy suits most people fine and even this economic debacle won't push them towards you. History n'all.

I am sure the Newsnight journalists are doing Kremlinology analysis of who is visiting Downing Street.

It seems to me that nobody knows when, or if, Quantitative Easing will work.

Therefore there would have to be some pretty fancy footwork and alternatives available if its deemed QE is not working. What are they and who is suggesting them?

A re-balancing of the economy must be in line anyway? I am sure the former "Iron Chancellor" must have views.

I assume that the deer in Richmond Park can rest easy knowing that we are not in such a dire straight that a reversion to the hunter-gatherer economy is likely.

Right?

By the way are Labour going to put in a bid for the Maldives Presidential yacht - keep Mandy out of trouble n'all.

They could rename it "Starbucks".

Go1 from my understanding of JJ's links, no-one has disagreed that 'Genetic variation is greater with races than between races.'

Barrie - have you been caninising with the Staffs again, or how else did you manage to reappear so mysteriously? and please somebody tell me what is allowed and what is not because i just don't get it from reading other posts.

as for peer review i vote for the theory that maintains that it is politicised - is a fine example; Oxford University's best kept secret.

(this computer language requires sooooo much concentration!)

My personal views -

haemophiliacs

Even if we had gone for British Blood for British Blood Products in the early 1980's, by 1984 there was a threat posed by the BSE outbreak and it's unknown (at the time) effects on humans.
What would have been the alternatives then ?

I agree the victims should be compensated.

Watching the excellent broadcast journalism of those such as Mark Urban and Paul Mason, it is sometimes possible to forget that Newsnight can sometimes sink to the level of peddler of propaganda, wittingly or unwittingly. Thankfully we can usually rely on the studio based discussion pieces to remind us.

Last night the piece on Binyam Mohamed's questionable 'repatriation' to the UK provided us with a classic example. A professional journalist would usually seek to identify the facts and create balance and debate by inclusion of varying and possible contradictory perspectives. Controlling the frame of the event to allow perspectives to be aired and challenged and the audience to make up their own minds.

A propagandist doesn't want any real debate and most certainly doesn't want the audience to be allowed to make up its own mind. The propagandist thus needs to structure the 'debate' in such a way as to give the audience the opportunity to reach only the intended conclusion. Of course the more sophisticated the audience the more careful the propagandist has to be.

One solution to the propagandist's dilemma is corrupt the journalist format by 'stacking' the discussion group with only those that can be relied upon to stick to the message. This is however problematic with more intelligent or more sophisticated audiences who will detect the manipulation and may react negatively.

The trick here is to manipulate without appearing to manipulate. One way to achieve this would be to continue to exclude contrary opinion but to include so called 'tame neutrals' alongside your message advocates. Such individuals must inevitably have a very limited role, their contributions need to be framed by the host to ensure they never challenge the message but still give the message credibility both by their presence and by their lack of any challenge.

With that in mind a look at last night's piece on Biunyam is revealing. To discuss what is a highly controversial and divisive move by the UK Government to 'repatriate' to these shores an Ethiopian national with a highly questionable history , the mighty Newsnight assembled a 'formidable ' panel of 3. One a publicly avowed supporter of the Ethiopian , the other a politician who clearly supports not only temporary repatriation but also granting of permanent residence. And lastly a credible neutral . Now let me see which model does that remind you of, the professional journalist's or that of the propagandist !

When one then considers the way the 'discussion' was allowed to proceed suspicions are further aroused. No reference was made to this man's questionable history or associations. Conspicuously no reference to his use of a false passport. No reference to US authorities concerns about his missing time in Afghanistan and Pakistan. No inkling of the weakness of the assumption that this man is a British Resident with claim on our state or its resources. Instead all we got was the opportunity for his supporters to air his unsubstantiated allegations against the US and UK.

Newsnight as a vehicle of propaganda.

HUMAN IRRATIONALITY

thegangofone (#19) "Do you think Popper or Hume or anybody without a twisted psyche would lend their support to your views?"

Here's a challenge for you.

You go and look up the data published by the our goivernment (it's all in the public doman. I've given links to it in the past, but you should be able to find it as SATs are published by the HMG 16+1 ethnic group system every year. Examine the rank orderings of the ethnic groups for the Key Stage SATs for Maths, English and Science (NFER CAT proxies for Quantitiative, Verbal and Non-Verbal IQ). Then look at the English and Maths tails for the sexes. Then look at the USA SATs and the OECD PISA data by ethnic group.

I challenge you to find psychometric data published in any of the journals to support what you say.

Warning, you'll have a very hard time doing so, as that's how wrong you are about this and how silly you're making yourself look.

I've been telling you .

You do understand that?

#23

I also wondered why no mention of the false passport allegations were .

SOME PEOPLE ARE SO DISHONEST (#26)

You can be sure that if it suited any of his captors that he should be travelling on a false passport, then BY NOW, that is what he has - a false one (regardless of what he started with). AND I guess you can't check with the UK Passport Office as that would be a data protection, or human rights, or some sort of discrimination issue.

Anyway: we all know I am trustworthy, don't we?

Barrie (#26) You mean at least one? Are you confessing to an imperfection? Are you not omniscient?

Just don't link to 'collective guilt' - it appears to be - verbotten.

Do Britain's health ministers bear any responsibility for the deaths of nearly 1,800 haemophiliacs?

Yes, But also does the society at large also have responsibility on the deaths....

~Dennis Junior~

doctormisswest (#21) "Go1 from my understanding of JJ's links, no-one has disagreed that 'Genetic variation is greater with races than between races.'

Go1 does not appear to understand basic statistics, never mind like Discriminant Analysis. Nor does he appear to recognise the signficance of the names Fisher, Pearson or Spearman as members of the Eugenics Society (now known as the Galton Insitute headed by Steve Jones).

It's a very sad sign of our times.

See 'collective guilt'.