Search results

No. I think it must be assumed that he had more of a liaison role.

On reflection, what this reminded me of was the interview with Crawley on You and Yours when there was a perfectly sensible programme for 40 minutes or so and then a last minute interview with Crawley was awkwardly levered in at the end. The presenter's heart was not in this. It was something...

Did anybody hear any attempt to substantiate the allegations? And what is this condition that 1 in a hundred people suffer from? The BBC might as well give up on any pretence to serious journalism.

It is very courageous of "the award-winning" Tom Feilden to announce his interest. I await his hearing his item. One might hope that the Today programme will be trying to rebalance the debate following the input from their old alumnus Liddle-who may have learnt all he knows in workig on the...

Is he a victim of the "do not test" mantra of official policy?

I think I preferred the old days when all we had to contend with was intelligent artificiality.

As it seems that Reuters has the capacity to identify and locate those who tweet, perhaps they could do the same with this individual and run a story on his motivations and expectations and the effects he might have on advocacy attempts.

A very good point. This is precisely the behaviour which he deprecates when directed against himself. But what we have to ask ourselves is, does anybody feel intimidated by this, sufficiently to make them wish to withdraw from the forum?

I suppose that he would argue that a contingent threat is not a threat. When careers are made on sophistry , who is to say?

This raises serious questions for the journal. The reuters article would have had to take this response into account had there been simultaneous publication. Are they able to respond to the very obvious suspicions?

It appears from that transcript that this article is merely a hasty reworking of Liddle's earlier diatribe-was it in 2015?. I don't intend to waste time looking. What seems to be of interest is not the content of the article but the reasons for the Sunday Times commissioning it. They knew...

Understanding SW is the work of a lifetime. I have read quite a lot of his work recently. Sometimes I have thought that it is not really half as bad as expected, and that he could be quite likeable. But he then always manages to write something to make one conclude that one was right all along...

Liddle is a very sad character. We should have the common human decency of sympathising with him in his plight. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he modelled his career on Private Eye's Phil Space, and never realised that it was a spoof.

I think that history will decide that these are what McEvedy and Beard and PK Thomas would have known as simulated symptoms. It is hard to believe that adult professionals would suffer anything more than annoyance and a certain frustration at these tweets. There was a time before the internet...

www.customercare.org/thomson-reuters-complaints This link seems to suggest that they recognise a problem in dealing with initial complaints and have in place a mechanism for dealing with it. Whether it works is another matter.

It's interesting to note that the three authors of that paper quoted were at the National Hospital, Queen Square. Isn't that where SW was.

One has to wonder what is the duty of disclosure of a supposedly serious news outlet. One sometimes sees reports in which it is stated that the report is produced in conjunction with others and providing reference to further extrinsic material. That seems absolutely legitimate. In this case...

Now that Kelland and Reuters have provided a degree of international notoriety for @Paul Watton and Anton Mayer one wonders whether detailed examination of the tweets is called for with a view to possibly demanding redress from all the outlets which have published the article uncritically. Any...

Perhaps PWME can be seen as a "Causa sine qua non", rather than a "causa causans".

The position may, however, change once a recording is no longer used as a record of the consultation, for example where the recording is disclosed or publicised in a modified way which is not connected to the consultation. This could include an instance where it is designed to cause detriment to...