Ashford: Should he stay or should he go?

[Newsdesk]

1 hour ago, Lrk said:

You need to strip away the emotion and find the real reason why his position is untenable.

There isn’t any emotion really from what I can see. People have just had their fill of being in the gravitational pull of someone who exhibits a lot of the traits of a quite a dangerous sociopath. If you do a Google audit the covid video briefings in hindsight were literally terrible. And now we know that he wasn’t even getting the right information from the people on the shop floor before he stood up there and pretended that that he knew what was going on. The man is an actor pure and simple. He has no substance whatsoever other than to turn up and do what he’s been told to do. Even if people are dying or being made unemployed. 

[Lrk]

2 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

There isn’t any emotion really from what I can see. People have just had their fill of being in the gravitational pull of someone who exhibits a lot of the traits of a quite a dangerous sociopath. If you do a Google audit the covid video briefings in hindsight were literally terrible. And now we know that he wasn’t even getting the right information from the people on the shop floor before he stood up there and pretended that that he knew what was going on. The man is an actor pure and simple. He has no substance whatsoever other than to turn up and do what he’s been told to do. Even if people are dying or being made unemployed. 

So...prove...it, and bring him down.

Opining on forums is all very well, but have the courage to lodge Freedom of Information requests. If you don't get what you need, appeal to the Information Regulator.

find out what he should have done and show that he didn't do it.

[Gladys]

12 minutes ago, Lrk said:

Hi Gladys,

I've asked myself that exact question. Should the politicians have wondered why the medics weren't at the table when Van Tam et al were delivering wisdom to the citizens on the evening news alongside the PM?

I think the puzzle that needs to be solved is this: how does an (essentially) unqualified politician discern who needs to be at the table, and more importantly, if all voices are at the table, how is the politician expected to adjudicate between competing and contradictory advice, particularly when lives are on the line and the press conference is hours away?

We saw how inadequate Beecroft was when put in charge of a department that wasn't in crisis. How much harder must it have been during an unprecedented pandemic that has claimed six million live to date?

 

But should the politicians not have questioned why the medical director was no longer giving direct input? It would seem a reasonable question to ask. Not only because she was medically qualified but was able to see, first hand, what was happening at the hospital.  

As for the unusual circumstances of the pandemic, what went on was not directly due to the pandemic, it was not caused by sudden pressures on the system.  

Let's look at it in a different way.  If Dr Ewart had suddenly been blocked from accessing Ministers and attending press conferences, wouldn't you expect questions to be asked?  I know she is in Cabinet Office, but you see the point, I hope. 

 

[Newsdesk]

1 minute ago, Lrk said:

Opining on forums is all very well, but have the courage to lodge Freedom of Information requests. If you don't get what you need, appeal to the Information Regulator.

You don’t need to prove he’s an actor. He clearly and categorically is. And probably one of the worst completely tilted by an insane ego built up over the pandemic as he really believed he was saving the world. A complete Messiah Complex. What would anyone need an FOI for? 

[Lrk]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

But should the politicians not have questioned why the medical director was no longer giving direct input? It would seem a reasonable question to ask. Not only because she was medically qualified but was able to see, first hand, what was happening at the hospital.  

As for the unusual circumstances of the pandemic, what went on was not directly due to the pandemic, it was not caused by sudden pressures on the system.  

Let's look at it in a different way.  If Dr Ewart had suddenly been blocked from accessing Ministers and attending press conferences, wouldn't you expect questions to be asked?  I know she is in Cabinet Office, but you see the point, I hope. 

 

Can I ask you to examine how much of your post relies upon hindsight. It's important because the politicians were being asked to make crucial decisions each day. If the politicians (naively) relied upon the chief of the Health Service to supply medical advice, are you suggesting that they should have been automatically suspicious that the advice was incomplete and that there might be dissent so vehement that it needed to be expressed, but couldn't (for some reason) find its way to the politicians' ears?

Think about that for a moment. The groundswell of medical opinion was that the Government were making huge mistakes but the only voice they thought they had was Rosalind Ranson, and if she failed to raise them then everyone remained silent.

really?

[Lrk]

14 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

You don’t need to prove he’s an actor. He clearly and categorically is. And probably one of the worst completely tilted by an insane ego built up over the pandemic as he really believed he was saving the world. A complete Messiah Complex. What would anyone need an FOI for? 

I disagree. The information regulator has proven that he is not in government's pocket. It's unfair to say he has an insane ego.

[Newsdesk]

2 minutes ago, Lrk said:

I disagree. The information regulator has proven that he is not in government's pocket. It's unfair to say he has an insane ego.

What’s the information commissioner got to do with anything? Ashford is deranged with a clearly insane and out of control ego. Which will bring him down in the next few weeks.

[Lrk]

21 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

You don’t need to prove he’s an actor. He clearly and categorically is. And probably one of the worst completely tilted by an insane ego built up over the pandemic as he really believed he was saving the world. A complete Messiah Complex. What would anyone need an FOI for? 

You said this in response to my suggestion that Freedom of Information requests would be supported by the Information Regulator. Who were you talking about?

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Lrk said:

Can I ask you to examine how much of your post relies upon hindsight. It's important because the politicians were being asked to make crucial decisions each day. If the politicians (naively) relied upon the chief of the Health Service to supply medical advice, are you suggesting that they should have been automatically suspicious that the advice was incomplete and that there might be dissent so vehement that it needed to be expressed, but couldn't (for some reason) find its way to the politicians' ears?

Think about that for a moment. The groundswell of medical opinion was that the Government were making huge mistakes but the only voice they thought they had was Rosalind Ranson, and if she failed to raise them then everyone remained silent.

really?

There is no hindsight involved if one day a person is suddenly removed from the loop and you do not question why. 

Many posters on here were questioning various "odd" decisions and announcements. Those concerns were at the time and without hindsight.  Many were also explained in the Tribual decision.  

[Lrk]

3 minutes ago, Newsdesk said:

What’s the information commissioner got to do with anything? Ashford is deranged with a clearly insane and out of control ego. Which will bring him down in the next few weeks.

Sorry - I see it now. you were suggesting Ashford was insane, not the Freedom of Information guy.

My mistake.

[Gladys]

Just now, Lrk said:

Sorry - I see it now. you were suggesting Ashford was insane, not the Freedom of Information guy.

My mistake.

In hindsight?

[Lrk]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

In hindsight?

Yes - definitely. I thought the poster was suggesting that the Information Regulator was insane and driven by his ego. When I read his riposte, it was clear to me that he was referring instead to Ashford. 

That is technically hindsight.

[Lrk]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

There is no hindsight involved if one day a person is suddenly removed from the loop and you do not question why. 

Many posters on here were questioning various "odd" decisions and announcements. Those concerns were at the time and without hindsight.  Many were also explained in the Tribual decision.  

You're the minister of production. Your team consists of the head of line 1, line 2, line 3 and the head engineer. Who's missing?

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Lrk said:

You're the minister of production. Your team consists of the head of line 1, line 2, line 3 and the head engineer. Who's missing?

That is a facile question. If that is your team and the head engineer is suddenly absent from the team, you would ask why. 

[Lrk]

Just now, Gladys said:

That is a facile question. If that is your team and the head engineer is suddenly absent from the team, you would ask why. 

no, your team is: goods inwards, metrology, assembly, QA, press shop, mould shop, stores, despatch.

How did you not know who should have been present?