What's new

prof john ashton suspended

in the absence of a sacking for being obviously shit at his job(presumably ,being an expert on radio is part of his job) i'll take it whatever way it comes.

He's not meant to share his opinion,or let it cloud his views,he's a scientist and should behave as such...certainly when called upon to provide expert views on national radio.

the 'nicotine causes blindness' comment should have been enough to remove him from public view
 
Last edited:
in the absence of a sacking for being obviously shit at his job(presumably ,being an expert on radio is part of his job) i'll take it whatever way it comes.

He's not meant to share his opinion,or let it cloud his views,he's a scientist and should behave as such...certainly when called upon to provide expert views on national radio.

the 'nicotine causes blindness' comment should have been enough to remove him from public view

I'm a scientist too, it'll be a sorry day when that precludes me from calling people cunts who I think are cunts.

He is there to be argued against, not argued with. This is nothing more that a perceived, albeit pyrrhic, victory. Good argument and science haven't brought him to this point - just whingers and people who get offended far, far too easily.

Why did he remain in his job prior to this? Because he represented the opinions of its members. Does hectoring a man from office win them over? I sincerely doubt it.
 
Unusually for me, I'm going to swim against the tide of opinion on this - I think it's a lamentable action.

Suspend people for being shit at their jobs, fine.

Take measures because of opinions people hold or actions outside of work, not fine.

Going to disagree with you there. When you accept a position as a figurehead of a public-facing body and, lets face it, you don't get more public than the Faculty of Public Health, then you also accept that you will always be in the public eye and should act accordingly and be seen to be doing so. Sure, in private, he can carry on how he likes but be discreet about it. He chose unprofessionally to enter the fray in a public forum and denigrated himself and the organisation he represents.
 
I'm a scientist too, it'll be a sorry day when that precludes me from calling people cunts who I think are cunts.

He is there to be argued against, not argued with. This is nothing more that a perceived, albeit pyrrhic, victory. Good argument and science haven't brought him to this point - just whingers and people who get offended far, far too easily.

Why did he remain in his job prior to this? Because he represented the opinions of its members. Does hectoring a man from office win them over? I sincerely doubt it.

Scientific debate , I absolutely agree.. completley healthy and how it should be. However part of Public Healths founding principles (don't laugh) is supposed to be

a) an independant arbitrator
b)evidence based
c)critical friend
d) advocate of the vulnerable.

He lost it on point A when he made it personal
 
Going to disagree with you there. When you accept a position as a figurehead of a public-facing body and, lets face it, you don't get more public than the Faculty of Public Health, then you also accept that you will always be in the public eye and should act accordingly and be seen to be doing so. Sure, in private, he can carry on how he likes but be discreet about it. He chose unprofessionally to enter the fray in a public forum and denigrated himself and the organisation he represents.

Disagreeing with me is often the wisest choice to make. ;)

But that's not any definition of denigrate I understand. I'd take 'disparaged' himself but I believe that people have the absolute right to think and act as individuals and not as a limb of a corporate entity.

I feel that this is an intelligent man who simply has a set of feelings regarding a topic not shared by others on the other side of the fence. Late night, a couple of whiskeys in, I'd have done exactly the same when I was younger.

If we are looking to win arguments and gain friends then attacking people is not the way forward...which is why I tend to stay away from reasoned debate on the issue - I like to call people how I see them...which doesn't make me that dissimilar to him :D
 
Scientific debate , I absolutely agree.. completley healthy and how it should be. However part of Public Healths founding principles (don't laugh) is supposed to be

a) an independant arbitrator
b)evidence based
c)critical friend
d) advocate of the vulnerable.

He lost it on point A when he made it personal

They make their own principles, I'd imagine they could always change (A) to read: "A belligerent, cantankerous white male".

If they do then I'm applying.
 
While I gurgled happily enough at the news - Ashton has worked hard for this, he's earned it, couldn't happen to a nicer jizzweasel and all that - Mawsley has a point.

The forces of darkness have not seen the error of their ways in this matter. Ashton has shown himself up as an unstable and unwelcome asset to the ANTZ project, so he is likely to be removed, with maximum unctuousness (thanks for valuable service, a fucking knighthood for all I know or care) minimum loss of face (I know, right? A bit late for that) and replaced by a smoother operator.

This isn't going to make the hearts and minds thing any easier at all.
 
While I gurgled happily enough at the news - Ashton has worked hard for this, he's earned it, couldn't happen to a nicer jizzweasel and all that - @Mawsley has a point.

The forces of darkness have not seen the error of their ways in this matter. Ashton has shown himself up as an unstable and unwelcome asset to the ANTZ project, so he is likely to be removed, with maximum unctuousness (thanks for valuable service, a fucking knighthood for all I know or care) minimum loss of face (I know, right? A bit late for that) and replaced by a smoother operator.

This isn't going to make the hearts and minds thing any easier at all.

http://youtu.be/kEl5RvbGdik
 
Back
Top Bottom