I didn't bother reading the header because I don't read contributions by that author, whom I believe to be a classic case of someone who can't write or think for toffees but who thinks they're a great writer and thinker.
But on the story that it's about - I see the BMA/GMC's propagandists are out in strength today. Mustn't blame any "doctors" or the "professional" collectivity of "doctors" for anything, right? Mustn't let the whole stinking profession fall into the disrepute it so richly deserves.
If you're bothered about writers who can't write for toffees but think they're great then stick around. You are new to the site but there's much worse offenders, there's one who serially writes for the Spectator the most atrocious stuff but thinks they're the bee's knees.
I'm sure you won't be impressed there either.
Leon is a rather atrocious writer, bully and just generally unpleasant. Can someone explain what I am missing?
I think PB overuses the word "bully/bullying": everything on PB is written, not actioned, and everybody can respond back to everybody else in the same manner. So no, I don't think Leon is a bully[1]. He does have a long list of negative characteristics[2], but not that
Interestingly, the most negative behavior on PB (at least IMHO) is when people gang up on people, an activity sometimes called "brigading". It happens to @HYUFD a lot. Since @HYUFD is the individual most able to cope with it, it's not necessarily a problem, but it's not good to watch.
[1] Although he may or may not be in real life: how would I know? [2] Long list. Loooong list.
[1] I've met him and know more about him than I believe he supposes. No, he is not a bully. He does like a verbal spat, but that's hardly bullying.
[2] Agreed, but he has a lot of positive ones too, and on the whole I think the site is better with him than without.
I too dislike the 'brigding' of Hyufd, but he seems to handle it well and I don't think he feels the need for any special protection.
I spend too much time here because it is entertaining and informative. I like my viewpoints being challenged, I like the quality of material that is linked to and there is a good splash of humour. This works best when there is a wide range of views and even the odd obsessive to play off.
As John Donne put it: No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
We are not talking death but the principle is the same. I regret it when any regular contributor withdraws from this site for any reason but particularly when it is because of abuse directed towards them from others. The site is diminished and so are we.
One of my reported decisions that I am most proud of was the successful appeal against the decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council. It had some similarities to the Letby case, albeit it was a lot less serious. Quite large quantities of drugs were disappearing from a hospital. The hospital staff did an analysis of who was on duty on the 11 times the pills went missing and she was the only one on duty on every occasion. She was sacked and then struck off.
On the face of it the case looked pretty open and shut and things got much more complicated when a solicitor who had taken a fair chunk of money to prepare a case then dropped out before the hearing. The nurse was not allowed an adjournment and had to represent herself.
What became clear when you looked into the evidence, however, was that things were much more complicated. The analysis reflected the times nurses were on duty. But nurses didn't leave when they finished their shifts, they stayed on to complete their paperwork. Nurses arrived early as well so they could catch up on where their patients were and what was needed for their shift. None of this was recorded (or indeed paid for) but the result was that the analysis was a lot fuzzier than it first appeared and other potential candidates came back into view. There was also some evidence that the pills, which were anti sickness, were routinely taken by paramedics when they went out to prevent any travel sickness when working on patients in a moving ambulance.
The case is reported in 2015 SC 282. I was particularly assisted by the presence of Lord Drummond Young on the appeal bench who is highly numerate. The case showed me that this kind of modelling is problematic when relying upon records that are being kept for entirely different purposes. The decision to strike her off was quashed.
That’s very impressive, well done.
I wonder how many people have their lives ruined in similar circumstances? The Post Office scandal immediately springs to mind, where the computer evidence was erroneously (to be very polite) held up to be absolute truth.
I was always desperate to get one of those cases but never did. They never passed the smell test, something just wasn't right.
I didn't bother reading the header because I don't read contributions by that author, whom I believe to be a classic case of someone who can't write or think for toffees but who thinks they're a great writer and thinker.
But on the story that it's about - I see the BMA/GMC's propagandists are out in strength today. Mustn't blame any "doctors" or the "professional" collectivity of "doctors" for anything, right? Mustn't let the whole stinking profession fall into the disrepute it so richly deserves.
If you're bothered about writers who can't write for toffees but think they're great then stick around. You are new to the site but there's much worse offenders, there's one who serially writes for the Spectator the most atrocious stuff but thinks they're the bee's knees.
I'm sure you won't be impressed there either.
Leon is a rather atrocious writer, bully and just generally unpleasant. Can someone explain what I am missing?
I think PB overuses the word "bully/bullying": everything on PB is written, not actioned, and everybody can respond back to everybody else in the same manner. So no, I don't think Leon is a bully[1]. He does have a long list of negative characteristics[2], but not that
Interestingly, the most negative behavior on PB (at least IMHO) is when people gang up on people, an activity sometimes called "brigading". It happens to @HYUFD a lot. Since @HYUFD is the individual most able to cope with it, it's not necessarily a problem, but it's not good to watch.
[1] Although he may or may not be in real life: how would I know? [2] Long list. Loooong list.
Leon can be incredibly unpleasant to people. I agree it probably doesn't amount to bullying but it can still be nasty to be on the receiving end of it, especially if it leads to a wave of similar comments from others. I do recall once being on the receiving end of that kind of treatment and it triggered a physical reaction. I think it is good to try to avoid unkind words on here, I hope I generally manage that.
I didn't bother reading the header because I don't read contributions by that author, whom I believe to be a classic case of someone who can't write or think for toffees but who thinks they're a great writer and thinker.
But on the story that it's about - I see the BMA/GMC's propagandists are out in strength today. Mustn't blame any "doctors" or the "professional" collectivity of "doctors" for anything, right? Mustn't let the whole stinking profession fall into the disrepute it so richly deserves.
If you're bothered about writers who can't write for toffees but think they're great then stick around. You are new to the site but there's much worse offenders, there's one who serially writes for the Spectator the most atrocious stuff but thinks they're the bee's knees.
I'm sure you won't be impressed there either.
Leon is a rather atrocious writer, bully and just generally unpleasant. Can someone explain what I am missing?
I think PB overuses the word "bully/bullying": everything on PB is written, not actioned, and everybody can respond back to everybody else in the same manner. So no, I don't think Leon is a bully[1]. He does have a long list of negative characteristics[2], but not that
Interestingly, the most negative behavior on PB (at least IMHO) is when people gang up on people, an activity sometimes called "brigading". It happens to @HYUFD a lot. Since @HYUFD is the individual most able to cope with it, it's not necessarily a problem, but it's not good to watch.
[1] Although he may or may not be in real life: how would I know? [2] Long list. Loooong list.
Leon can be incredibly unpleasant to people. I agree it probably doesn't amount to bullying but it can still be nasty to be on the receiving end of it, especially if it leads to a wave of similar comments from others. I do recall once being on the receiving end of that kind of treatment and it triggered a physical reaction. I think it is good to try to avoid unkind words on here, I hope I generally manage that.
You do.
Leon once said I was an ugly autistic winger and compared me to an image he’d generated on ChatGPT which was of a fat, socially awkward bloke. I found this offensive. I don’t have autism but have friends that do and I was very disappointed to read that on this site.
I didn't bother reading the header because I don't read contributions by that author, whom I believe to be a classic case of someone who can't write or think for toffees but who thinks they're a great writer and thinker.
But on the story that it's about - I see the BMA/GMC's propagandists are out in strength today. Mustn't blame any "doctors" or the "professional" collectivity of "doctors" for anything, right? Mustn't let the whole stinking profession fall into the disrepute it so richly deserves.
If you're bothered about writers who can't write for toffees but think they're great then stick around. You are new to the site but there's much worse offenders, there's one who serially writes for the Spectator the most atrocious stuff but thinks they're the bee's knees.
I'm sure you won't be impressed there either.
Leon is a rather atrocious writer, bully and just generally unpleasant. Can someone explain what I am missing?
I think PB overuses the word "bully/bullying": everything on PB is written, not actioned, and everybody can respond back to everybody else in the same manner. So no, I don't think Leon is a bully[1]. He does have a long list of negative characteristics[2], but not that
Interestingly, the most negative behavior on PB (at least IMHO) is when people gang up on people, an activity sometimes called "brigading". It happens to @HYUFD a lot. Since @HYUFD is the individual most able to cope with it, it's not necessarily a problem, but it's not good to watch.
[1] Although he may or may not be in real life: how would I know? [2] Long list. Loooong list.
[1] I've met him and know more about him than I believe he supposes. No, he is not a bully. He does like a verbal spat, but that's hardly bullying.
[2] Agreed, but he has a lot of positive ones too, and on the whole I think the site is better with him than without.
I too dislike the 'brigding' of Hyufd, but he seems to handle it well and I don't think he feels the need for any special protection.
I spend too much time here because it is entertaining and informative. I like my viewpoints being challenged, I like the quality of material that is linked to and there is a good splash of humour. This works best when there is a wide range of views and even the odd obsessive to play off.
As John Donne put it: No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
We are not talking death but the principle is the same. I regret it when any regular contributor withdraws from this site for any reason but particularly when it is because of abuse directed towards them from others. The site is diminished and so are we.
Yes, I agree, David, but fear not for the Site. It waxeth and it waneth, and it has stood the test of time.
I didn't bother reading the header because I don't read contributions by that author, whom I believe to be a classic case of someone who can't write or think for toffees but who thinks they're a great writer and thinker.
But on the story that it's about - I see the BMA/GMC's propagandists are out in strength today. Mustn't blame any "doctors" or the "professional" collectivity of "doctors" for anything, right? Mustn't let the whole stinking profession fall into the disrepute it so richly deserves.
What do you think about Ukraine/Russia?
Don't change the subject. I made some Ukrainian-style courgette fritters yesterday and they were delicious.
I don't see any BMA/GMC propagandists here, unless you mean my trying to keep the murderer's anonymity secret so the media can't go after her family and friends?
I’m as sorry for the perpetrator’s parents as I am the parents of the victims.
Their only child, who they loved and were proud of. Unimaginable how they must feel.
One suspects a deep sense of denial, the like of which is not uncommon amongst parents.
Yes. It's a grim topic that's always interested me, how the close family of heinous murderers deal with their lives afterwards.
One of my reported decisions that I am most proud of was the successful appeal against the decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council. It had some similarities to the Letby case, albeit it was a lot less serious. Quite large quantities of drugs were disappearing from a hospital. The hospital staff did an analysis of who was on duty on the 11 times the pills went missing and she was the only one on duty on every occasion. She was sacked and then struck off.
On the face of it the case looked pretty open and shut and things got much more complicated when a solicitor who had taken a fair chunk of money to prepare a case then dropped out before the hearing. The nurse was not allowed an adjournment and had to represent herself.
What became clear when you looked into the evidence, however, was that things were much more complicated. The analysis reflected the times nurses were on duty. But nurses didn't leave when they finished their shifts, they stayed on to complete their paperwork. Nurses arrived early as well so they could catch up on where their patients were and what was needed for their shift. None of this was recorded (or indeed paid for) but the result was that the analysis was a lot fuzzier than it first appeared and other potential candidates came back into view. There was also some evidence that the pills, which were anti sickness, were routinely taken by paramedics when they went out to prevent any travel sickness when working on patients in a moving ambulance.
The case is reported in 2015 SC 282. I was particularly assisted by the presence of Lord Drummond Young on the appeal bench who is highly numerate. The case showed me that this kind of modelling is problematic when relying upon records that are being kept for entirely different purposes. The decision to strike her off was quashed.
That’s very impressive, well done.
I wonder how many people have their lives ruined in similar circumstances? The Post Office scandal immediately springs to mind, where the computer evidence was erroneously (to be very polite) held up to be absolute truth.
I was always desperate to get one of those cases but never did. They never passed the smell test, something just wasn't right.
Oh indeed. I really want to see people in prison for that one, and I’m usually opposed to locking up nonviolent offenders. So many people, including those in my profession and yours, were responsible for a lot of ruined lives.
We can have a good laugh at that one, as no-one was killed, so it was just the inordinate waste of money both for the plane itself, which is very much scrap, and the massive operation to fish it out of the drink, lest the Russkis or Chinese tried to fish it out first.
I'm actually quite shaken by that report.
And not just the salvage op costing about 3% of the price of the plane.
Just two of a number of points.
It's actually possible to have the intake blank inside the intake but F/Lt Prune can't see it at all from the outside when kicking the tyres pre-flight - he has to crawl into it to have a look or get a roof rat to do it. Of course that makes sense, on reflection. With a stealth plane the intake face is supposed to be invisible from the outside. So it's not like a Harrier or a F-4 where a FOD guard in the intake is absolutely glaring. Apparently some squally wind blew it in or something. But if you don't whistle up a maintainer, you're playing chicken.
Another issue is that the FOD covers for intakes, exhausts, pitors, etc. weren't accounted for in any systematic way, when taken off the planes, although it was coming off at random with known issues. I have no idea how long doctors and nurses have been counting forceps, swabs and things into a patient and out again, but it's been a very long time. OTOH it must be hellish working on a carrier deck at the best of times - still less in a thundersquall in the middle of the night in the Med. In the dark with red torches when red intake blanks look just the same colour as the white intake. And so on.
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
One of my reported decisions that I am most proud of was the successful appeal against the decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council. It had some similarities to the Letby case, albeit it was a lot less serious. Quite large quantities of drugs were disappearing from a hospital. The hospital staff did an analysis of who was on duty on the 11 times the pills went missing and she was the only one on duty on every occasion. She was sacked and then struck off.
On the face of it the case looked pretty open and shut and things got much more complicated when a solicitor who had taken a fair chunk of money to prepare a case then dropped out before the hearing. The nurse was not allowed an adjournment and had to represent herself.
What became clear when you looked into the evidence, however, was that things were much more complicated. The analysis reflected the times nurses were on duty. But nurses didn't leave when they finished their shifts, they stayed on to complete their paperwork. Nurses arrived early as well so they could catch up on where their patients were and what was needed for their shift. None of this was recorded (or indeed paid for) but the result was that the analysis was a lot fuzzier than it first appeared and other potential candidates came back into view. There was also some evidence that the pills, which were anti sickness, were routinely taken by paramedics when they went out to prevent any travel sickness when working on patients in a moving ambulance.
The case is reported in 2015 SC 282. I was particularly assisted by the presence of Lord Drummond Young on the appeal bench who is highly numerate. The case showed me that this kind of modelling is problematic when relying upon records that are being kept for entirely different purposes. The decision to strike her off was quashed.
That's excellent. Bot you and the Appeal Judge. It reminds me of some of the early convictions on computer evidence that were on very shaky ground when properly scrutinised. Or indeed the early misapplications of DNA stuff.
I didn't bother reading the header because I don't read contributions by that author, whom I believe to be a classic case of someone who can't write or think for toffees but who thinks they're a great writer and thinker.
But on the story that it's about - I see the BMA/GMC's propagandists are out in strength today. Mustn't blame any "doctors" or the "professional" collectivity of "doctors" for anything, right? Mustn't let the whole stinking profession fall into the disrepute it so richly deserves.
If you're bothered about writers who can't write for toffees but think they're great then stick around. You are new to the site but there's much worse offenders, there's one who serially writes for the Spectator the most atrocious stuff but thinks they're the bee's knees.
I'm sure you won't be impressed there either.
Leon is a rather atrocious writer, bully and just generally unpleasant. Can someone explain what I am missing?
I think PB overuses the word "bully/bullying": everything on PB is written, not actioned, and everybody can respond back to everybody else in the same manner. So no, I don't think Leon is a bully[1]. He does have a long list of negative characteristics[2], but not that
Interestingly, the most negative behavior on PB (at least IMHO) is when people gang up on people, an activity sometimes called "brigading". It happens to @HYUFD a lot. Since @HYUFD is the individual most able to cope with it, it's not necessarily a problem, but it's not good to watch.
[1] Although he may or may not be in real life: how would I know? [2] Long list. Loooong list.
[1] I've met him and know more about him than I believe he supposes. No, he is not a bully. He does like a verbal spat, but that's hardly bullying.
[2] Agreed, but he has a lot of positive ones too, and on the whole I think the site is better with him than without.
I too dislike the 'brigding' of Hyufd, but he seems to handle it well and I don't think he feels the need for any special protection.
I spend too much time here because it is entertaining and informative. I like my viewpoints being challenged, I like the quality of material that is linked to and there is a good splash of humour. This works best when there is a wide range of views and even the odd obsessive to play off.
As John Donne put it: No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
We are not talking death but the principle is the same. I regret it when any regular contributor withdraws from this site for any reason but particularly when it is because of abuse directed towards them from others. The site is diminished and so are we.
Yes, I agree, David, but fear not for the Site. It waxeth and it waneth, and it has stood the test of time.
Well I'm a newbie (only 5 years) and imo it's not quite what it was a year or so ago. Not the BTL (which chugs merrily along, good days, great days, slow days, bad hair days) but with the Headers. There used to be 3 or 4 polished interesting pieces every week (Meeks, Herdson, Cycle, RCS, various others chancing their arm, even me once). Don't get this so much now. No big deal though.
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
You could entertain us with some puns ? Or is that too darned difficult ?
We can have a good laugh at that one, as no-one was killed, so it was just the inordinate waste of money both for the plane itself, which is very much scrap, and the massive operation to fish it out of the drink, lest the Russkis or Chinese tried to fish it out first.
I'm actually quite shaken by that report.
And not just the salvage op costing about 3% of the price of the plane.
Just two of a number of points.
It's actually possible to have the intake blank inside the intake but F/Lt Prune can't see it at all from the outside when kicking the tyres pre-flight - he has to crawl into it to have a look or get a roof rat to do it. Of course that makes sense, on reflection. With a stealth plane the intake face is supposed to be invisible from the outside. So it's not like a Harrier or a F-4 where a FOD guard in the intake is absolutely glaring. Apparently some squally wind blew it in or something. But if you don't whistle up a maintainer, you're playing chicken.
Another issue is that the FOD covers for intakes, exhausts, pitors, etc. weren't accounted for in any systematic way, when taken off the planes, although it was coming off at random with known issues. I have no idea how long doctors and nurses have been counting forceps, swabs and things into a patient and out again, but it's been a very long time. OTOH it must be hellish working on a carrier deck at the best of times - still less in a thundersquall in the middle of the night in the Med. In the dark with red torches when red intake blanks look just the same colour as the white intake. And so on.
Oh yes, it’s actually surprisingly easy to see how this one happened, a classic of all the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up.
Civvy commercial planes have a board in the cockpit for what the military call “Red Gear” - so all of the gear pins, pitot covers, engine blanks etc have a specific place where they live inside the plane, and the pilots double-check that they’re all there before they go. It doesn’t stop a ramp rat from using their own red gear, so you still have to be observant when walking around.
We can all work out how that board came about though, after multiple cases of planes trying to take off with pitots covered and gear locked down!
Every rule in aviation is written in either metaphorical or literal blood, you’re never the first pilot to have made that specific cock-up - which is why reports get written on incidents and accidents, so that the whole community learns from everyone’s mistakes. Hopefully we learn from the minor incidents, and have fewer major accidents as a result.
Anyway, I am psyching myself up for 3 hours of Oppenheimer. Hopefully it will go with a bang. Laters.
Have fun! I still haven’t seen it, ended up on a trip to a war zone instead. Hopefully it’s still in the IMAX when I get back to the sandpit next weekend.
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
You could entertain us with some puns ? Or is that too darned difficult ?
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
There's something that's a bit like Cricket on Sky Sports Cricket (currently named Sky Sports Hundred...)
The difference between a transitive and intransitive verb is still worth knowing.
[grits teeth. swallows pride.]
OK, explain please
Transitive verbs can take a grammatical object. 'Stop' is a transitive verb, so you can say 'I stop the bus' ('the bus' being the object). Intransitive can't take a grammatical object. 'Cease' for example. You can't say 'I cease the bus'. 'Wish' is also an intransitive verb. You can't say 'I wish a referendum'. (You can say 'I wish for a referendum' but then 'a referendum' becomes an indirect object introduced by the preposition 'for'.) I hope that's clear!
Is 'regarded' sometimes misused? I've noticed sentences such as 'She regarded him.' which seems incomplete to me. Shouldn't it be, for example, 'She regarded him critically.'? In the first sentence, is regarded being incorrectly substituted for another word, such as 'observed'?
A bit of a different question.
In both cases "she regarded him" and "she regarded him critically" him is a direct object (and therefore the verb is a transitive verb). "critically" I would say is an adverbial complement, as it's needed to complete the meaning of the verb. You could have an adverbial phrase here too "she regarded him as an expert on UFOs". Whether it's considered incorrect to use "regarded" without an adverbial complement (presumably meaning "she looked at him", or "she considered him") I don't know - maybe consult a good dictionary! It sounds odd to me, and I would at least question it if I was proofreading a text that contained it.
Of course lots of verbs can be used either with or without a direct object (ie transitively or intransitively). To take one of the above examples. In "I stop the bus" the verb stop has a direct object, but in "the bus is stopping" it doesn't.
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
There's something that's a bit like Cricket on Sky Sports Cricket (currently named Sky Sports Hundred...)
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
There's something that's a bit like Cricket on Sky Sports Cricket (currently named Sky Sports Hundred...)
That's not cricket.
Oh I get that, but you can just squint your eyes and pretend it is
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
There's something that's a bit like Cricket on Sky Sports Cricket (currently named Sky Sports Hundred...)
That's not cricket.
Oh I get that, but you can just squint your eyes and pretend it is
No I couldn't.
It would be like looking at Amanda Spielman and seeing integrity.
My own theory re: Putin-bots on PB, is that RUS is using this board as TRAINING for their web-operatives.
Which is why I suggest to Mods that, in future, instead of letting PBers toy with the fuckers for a while before banning, to ban them IMMEDIATELY upon discovery.
Why? Because their interactions with actual PBers are HELPING (albeit in small way) the cause of Mad Vlad.
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
You could entertain us with some puns ? Or is that too darned difficult ?
My own theory re: Putin-bots on PB, is that RUS is using this board as TRAINING for their web-operatives.
Which is why I suggest to Mods that, in future, instead of letting PBers toy with the fuckers for a while before banning, to ban them IMMEDIATELY upon discovery.
Why? Because their interactions with actual PBers are HELPING (albeit in small way) the cause of Mad Vlad.
Possibly, but imagine all their training sessions having to include material on 'how to reply to accusations Putin is a paederast' or 'what do you say when asked which side of the Russia/China border should you bury the survivors of plane crashes?'
I mean, it must cause them some grief in the Kremlin...
One of the problems in this case was that managers refused to carry out or order any sort of investigation into the concerns raised.
You really need to have an independent investigation unit which is responsible for investigating concerns raised and which cannot either be stopped by or only commissioned by management. That is how my team worked. We had responsibility for all investigations so staff knew to raise concerns directly with us. And we investigated them all. Managers could not stop us.
Also, one of the first issues to be discussed at the start of any investigation was whether people needed to be suspended and that was determined in line with the risk to the firm, regulatory obligations etc. Of course you need strong processes around this. But that independence is crucial - both in avoiding cover ups and in giving staff confidence to speak up knowing that they'll be listened to.
Yes definitely. But what should happen in cases where the concerns or allegations turn out to be nonsense? Should there be blowback on those who raised them and in the process wasted resource and maybe damaged other people?
How do you prevent misuse?
Some answers:-
1. The person raising the concern does not run or own the investigation. The investigators do. That distinction is important. It depends on having professional investigators who understand what they are trying to do. What you are not is the agent of the whistleblower.
2. You have to do the investigation with an open mind and in a way which allows you to gather all the facts without compromising those against whom allegations are made - if they turn out to be untrue. This is not easy but that's why professionalism is key.
3. You put out of your mind who has made the allegations while you investigate so that you don't get influenced by who it is ("ooh they're important so must be right" or "they"re a loon so we can ignore"). Whistleblowers can often be a bit nutty or obsessed or get the wrong end of the stick but so what. Your job is to listen and find out and not assume.
4. The aim of an investigation is to find out what happened. It does not necessarily have to lead to disciplinary measures. Sometimes it may just require better training, guidance, enhanced procedures or other changes. The purpose is not finding blame but finding out - and then thinking intelligently about how to avoid the mischief uncovered and/or improving matters. This last is not just down to the investigators of course but others - with input from them - and that process - how to use what you've learnt is key to making the investigation process worthwhile.
5. All good whistleblowing procedures say that action can be taken if a report is made maliciously. But remember - a concern being unsubstantiated does not make it malicious. It is very hard to use this provision because it can easily tip over into retaliation or looking like it - and that is an absolute no-no.
6. The key is that all parties must have confidence in the process, in its integrity and in the integrity of the investigators. That is not something which just comes from brilliant processes and procedure, though these are important, but also from the quality of the people doing it and them showing it.That takes time and hard work.
7. Even if something is unsubstantiated, the fact that people had a concern and did not feel able to raise it through the normal channels tells you something about management and communication and that should be addressed. Whistleblowing should be a last resort not the first. But if it is the first it is evidence of a less than ideal work culture so there is something to learn there too.
One of the problems in this case was that managers refused to carry out or order any sort of investigation into the concerns raised.
You really need to have an independent investigation unit which is responsible for investigating concerns raised and which cannot either be stopped by or only commissioned by management. That is how my team worked. We had responsibility for all investigations so staff knew to raise concerns directly with us. And we investigated them all. Managers could not stop us.
Also, one of the first issues to be discussed at the start of any investigation was whether people needed to be suspended and that was determined in line with the risk to the firm, regulatory obligations etc. Of course you need strong processes around this. But that independence is crucial - both in avoiding cover ups and in giving staff confidence to speak up knowing that they'll be listened to.
Yes definitely. But what should happen in cases where the concerns or allegations turn out to be nonsense? Should there be blowback on those who raised them and in the process wasted resource and maybe damaged other people?
How do you prevent misuse?
Some answers:-
1. The person raising the concern does not run or own the investigation. The investigators do. That distinction is important. It depends on having professional investigators who understand what they are trying to do. What you are not is the agent of the whistleblower.
2. You have to do the investigation with an open mind and in a way which allows you to gather all the facts without compromising those against whom allegations are made - if they turn out to be untrue. This is not easy but that's why professionalism is key.
3. You put out of your mind who has made the allegations while you investigate so that you don't get influenced by who it is ("ooh they're important so must be right" or "they"re a loon so we can ignore"). Whistleblowers can often be a bit nutty or obsessed or get the wrong end of the stick but so what. Your job is to listen and find out and not assume.
4. The aim of an investigation is to find out what happened. It does not necessarily have to lead to disciplinary measures. Sometimes it may just require better training, guidance, enhanced procedures or other changes. The purpose is not finding blame but finding out - and then thinking intelligently about how to avoid the mischief uncovered and/or improving matters. This last is not just down to the investigators of course but others - with input from them - and that process - how to use what you've learnt is key to making the investigation process worthwhile.
5. All good whistleblowing procedures say that action can be taken if a report is made maliciously. But remember - a concern being unsubstantiated does not make it malicious. It is very hard to use this provision because it can easily tip over into retaliation or looking like it - and that is an absolute no-no.
6. The key is that all parties must have confidence in the process, in its integrity and in the integrity of the investigators. That is not something which just comes from brilliant processes and procedure, though these are important, but also from the quality of the people doing it and them showing it.That takes time and hard work.
7. Even if something is unsubstantiated, the fact that people had a concern and did not feel able to raise through the normal channels tells you something about management and communication and that should be addressed. Whistleblowing should be a last resort not the first. But if it is the first it is evidence of a less than ideal work culture so there is something to learn there too.
I think that what worries me most about what I've heard here is that it seems concerns were raised but dismissed out of hand.
My own theory re: Putin-bots on PB, is that RUS is using this board as TRAINING for their web-operatives.
Which is why I suggest to Mods that, in future, instead of letting PBers toy with the fuckers for a while before banning, to ban them IMMEDIATELY upon discovery.
Why? Because their interactions with actual PBers are HELPING (albeit in small way) the cause of Mad Vlad.
Possibly, but imagine all their training sessions having to include material on 'how to reply to accusations Putin is a paederast' or 'what do you say when asked which side of the Russia/China border should you bury the survivors of plane crashes?'
I mean, it must cause them some grief in the Kremlin...
I doubt it. Seeing as how to survive for 5 minutes in "the Kremlin" you need a FAR tougher hide than average PBer?
Who as you may have noticed, is a snowflake in a microwave!
My own theory re: Putin-bots on PB, is that RUS is using this board as TRAINING for their web-operatives.
Which is why I suggest to Mods that, in future, instead of letting PBers toy with the fuckers for a while before banning, to ban them IMMEDIATELY upon discovery.
Why? Because their interactions with actual PBers are HELPING (albeit in small way) the cause of Mad Vlad.
Possibly, but imagine all their training sessions having to include material on 'how to reply to accusations Putin is a paederast' or 'what do you say when asked which side of the Russia/China border should you bury the survivors of plane crashes?'
I mean, it must cause them some grief in the Kremlin...
I doubt it. Seeing as how to survive for 5 minutes in "the Kremlin" you need a FAR tougher hide than average PBer?
Who as you may have noticed, is a snowflake in a microwave!
One of the problems in this case was that managers refused to carry out or order any sort of investigation into the concerns raised.
You really need to have an independent investigation unit which is responsible for investigating concerns raised and which cannot either be stopped by or only commissioned by management. That is how my team worked. We had responsibility for all investigations so staff knew to raise concerns directly with us. And we investigated them all. Managers could not stop us.
Also, one of the first issues to be discussed at the start of any investigation was whether people needed to be suspended and that was determined in line with the risk to the firm, regulatory obligations etc. Of course you need strong processes around this. But that independence is crucial - both in avoiding cover ups and in giving staff confidence to speak up knowing that they'll be listened to.
Yes definitely. But what should happen in cases where the concerns or allegations turn out to be nonsense? Should there be blowback on those who raised them and in the process wasted resource and maybe damaged other people?
How do you prevent misuse?
Some answers:-
1. The person raising the concern does not run or own the investigation. The investigators do. That distinction is important. It depends on having professional investigators who understand what they are trying to do. What you are not is the agent of the whistleblower.
2. You have to do the investigation with an open mind and in a way which allows you to gather all the facts without compromising those against whom allegations are made - if they turn out to be untrue. This is not easy but that's why professionalism is key.
3. You put out of your mind who has made the allegations while you investigate so that you don't get influenced by who it is ("ooh they're important so must be right" or "they"re a loon so we can ignore"). Whistleblowers can often be a bit nutty or obsessed or get the wrong end of the stick but so what. Your job is to listen and find out and not assume.
4. The aim of an investigation is to find out what happened. It does not necessarily have to lead to disciplinary measures. Sometimes it may just require better training, guidance, enhanced procedures or other changes. The purpose is not finding blame but finding out - and then thinking intelligently about how to avoid the mischief uncovered and/or improving matters. This last is not just down to the investigators of course but others - with input from them - and that process - how to use what you've learnt is key to making the investigation process worthwhile.
5. All good whistleblowing procedures say that action can be taken if a report is made maliciously. But remember - a concern being unsubstantiated does not make it malicious. It is very hard to use this provision because it can easily tip over into retaliation or looking like it - and that is an absolute no-no.
6. The key is that all parties must have confidence in the process, in its integrity and in the integrity of the investigators. That is not something which just comes from brilliant processes and procedure, though these are important, but also from the quality of the people doing it and them showing it.That takes time and hard work.
7. Even if something is unsubstantiated, the fact that people had a concern and did not feel able to raise through the normal channels tells you something about management and communication and that should be addressed. Whistleblowing should be a last resort not the first. But if it is the first it is evidence of a less than ideal work culture so there is something to learn there too.
I think that what worries me most about what I've heard here is that it seems concerns were raised but dismissed out of hand.
That's surely the unhealthiest sign of the lot?
Yes - of course.
They were raised to people who had an interest in not finding out more because of how bad it might make the institution look. Hence the need for an independent unit that is not concerned with saving management's face. Nor contaminated by the internal politics eg the managers being ex-nurses and so maybe too willing to defend a nurse against doctors etc.,.
There will have been systemic failures as always... but at the end of the day wicked people do wicked things... The only person responsible for Lucy Letby's appalling crimes was... Lucy Letby.
Nice to see you're still pushing out the columns, Miss Cycle.
The first 3 times, yes, Letby was solely to blame. The next 10 times, no. By then she should have been moved/suspended etc.
This is the most shocking line:
Karen Rees, who refused to take Letby off duty against the wishes of 7 consultant paediatricians
You know what? You can investigate and then reinstate them if it turns out they are innocent of allegtions. What you cannot do is bring babies back from the dead.
SEVEN consultants wanted her off duty. Now, they may have merely thought her incompetent rather than evil. But still. How many are needed to get someone moved?
And then they were forced to write a letter of apology to Letby!
Well, obviously. Since by suggesting that Letby had done something wrong, they had hurt her feelings.
Dear Vladimir
I am writing to apologise for anything I have said and written that might have hurt your feelings.
I realise now that conflating tens of thousands of deaths, injuries and mass destruction with those events happening on your watch is unfair and that I have learnt a lesson not to point out that bad things seem to happen whenever a particular person can be linked to those events clearly and without any doubt.
I do hope that others in this world learn this lesson and that you have a long and unblemished career in the murdering business.
Yours with fulsome apologies,
Boulay
The word 'fulsome' actually means 'nauseous/cloying', which I am sure your excellent apology is not.
Comments
As John Donne put it:
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece
of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by
the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's
death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for
thee.
We are not talking death but the principle is the same. I regret it when any regular contributor withdraws from this site for any reason but particularly when it is because of abuse directed towards them from others. The site is diminished and so are we.
Leon once said I was an ugly autistic winger and compared me to an image he’d generated on ChatGPT which was of a fat, socially awkward bloke. I found this offensive. I don’t have autism but have friends that do and I was very disappointed to read that on this site.
And not just the salvage op costing about 3% of the price of the plane.
Just two of a number of points.
It's actually possible to have the intake blank inside the intake but F/Lt Prune can't see it at all from the outside when kicking the tyres pre-flight - he has to crawl into it to have a look or get a roof rat to do it. Of course that makes sense, on reflection. With a stealth plane the intake face is supposed to be invisible from the outside. So it's not like a Harrier or a F-4 where a FOD guard in the intake is absolutely glaring. Apparently some squally wind blew it in or something. But if you don't whistle up a maintainer, you're playing chicken.
Another issue is that the FOD covers for intakes, exhausts, pitors, etc. weren't accounted for in any systematic way, when taken off the planes, although it was coming off at random with known issues. I have no idea how long doctors and nurses have been counting forceps, swabs and things into a patient and out again, but it's been a very long time. OTOH it must be hellish working on a carrier deck at the best of times - still less in a thundersquall in the middle of the night in the Med. In the dark with red torches when red intake blanks look just the same colour as the white intake. And so on.
I've got to stay in because the kitchen's being fitted.
And there's no cricket on to watch so I'm really bored.
I could do more work but I've spent five days on it and I'm sick of it.
I have a horrible feeling in an hour or so I will be so fed up I'll actually have got the mending out and be trying to sew up various holes in some rather nice trousers I've had for years and are about worn out but are so out of fashion now I can't find decent replacements.
(Is that making people feel a bit less nostalgic for @Leon ?)
Or is that too darned difficult ?
Civvy commercial planes have a board in the cockpit for what the military call “Red Gear” - so all of the gear pins, pitot covers, engine blanks etc have a specific place where they live inside the plane, and the pilots double-check that they’re all there before they go. It doesn’t stop a ramp rat from using their own red gear, so you still have to be observant when walking around.
We can all work out how that board came about though, after multiple cases of planes trying to take off with pitots covered and gear locked down!
Every rule in aviation is written in either metaphorical or literal blood, you’re never the first pilot to have made that specific cock-up - which is why reports get written on incidents and accidents, so that the whole community learns from everyone’s mistakes. Hopefully we learn from the minor incidents, and have fewer major accidents as a result.
In both cases "she regarded him" and "she regarded him critically" him is a direct object (and therefore the verb is a transitive verb).
"critically" I would say is an adverbial complement, as it's needed to complete the meaning of the verb. You could have an adverbial phrase here too "she regarded him as an expert on UFOs".
Whether it's considered incorrect to use "regarded" without an adverbial complement (presumably meaning "she looked at him", or "she considered him") I don't know - maybe consult a good dictionary! It sounds odd to me, and I would at least question it if I was proofreading a text that contained it.
Of course lots of verbs can be used either with or without a direct object (ie transitively or intransitively). To take one of the above examples. In "I stop the bus" the verb stop has a direct object, but in "the bus is stopping" it doesn't.
It would be like looking at Amanda Spielman and seeing integrity.
Not only impossible but counter-productive.
Which is why I suggest to Mods that, in future, instead of letting PBers toy with the fuckers for a while before banning, to ban them IMMEDIATELY upon discovery.
Why? Because their interactions with actual PBers are HELPING (albeit in small way) the cause of Mad Vlad.
I mean, it must cause them some grief in the Kremlin...
Some answers:-
1. The person raising the concern does not run or own the investigation. The investigators do. That distinction is important. It depends on having professional investigators who understand what they are trying to do. What you are not is the agent of the whistleblower.
2. You have to do the investigation with an open mind and in a way which allows you to gather all the facts without compromising those against whom allegations are made - if they turn out to be untrue. This is not easy but that's why professionalism is key.
3. You put out of your mind who has made the allegations while you investigate so that you don't get influenced by who it is ("ooh they're important so must be right" or "they"re a loon so we can ignore"). Whistleblowers can often be a bit nutty or obsessed or get the wrong end of the stick but so what. Your job is to listen and find out and not assume.
4. The aim of an investigation is to find out what happened. It does not necessarily have to lead to disciplinary measures. Sometimes it may just require better training, guidance, enhanced procedures or other changes. The purpose is not finding blame but finding out - and then thinking intelligently about how to avoid the mischief uncovered and/or improving matters. This last is not just down to the investigators of course but others - with input from them - and that process - how to use what you've learnt is key to making the investigation process worthwhile.
5. All good whistleblowing procedures say that action can be taken if a report is made maliciously. But remember - a concern being unsubstantiated does not make it malicious. It is very hard to use this provision because it can easily tip over into retaliation or looking like it - and that is an absolute no-no.
6. The key is that all parties must have confidence in the process, in its integrity and in the integrity of the investigators. That is not something which just comes from brilliant processes and procedure, though these are important, but also from the quality of the people doing it and them showing it.That takes time and hard work.
7. Even if something is unsubstantiated, the fact that people had a concern and did not feel able to raise it through the normal channels tells you something about management and communication and that should be addressed. Whistleblowing should be a last resort not the first. But if it is the first it is evidence of a less than ideal work culture so there is something to learn there too.
That's surely the unhealthiest sign of the lot?
Who as you may have noticed, is a snowflake in a microwave!
They were raised to people who had an interest in not finding out more because of how bad it might make the institution look. Hence the need for an independent unit that is not concerned with saving management's face. Nor contaminated by the internal politics eg the managers being ex-nurses and so maybe too willing to defend a nurse against doctors etc.,.