<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off makes
a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might have no
action taken.
The GMC used to be run by doctors but is now a government agency
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
"The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 26 April 2022, 4
May 2022 and 14 September 2022, Dr Benn engaged in peaceful protest
within a prohibited buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in breach of
an interim injunction granted on 14 April 2022.
It is not her ability that is being questioned, but her fitness to
practise.
She has been arrested on three separate occasions for breaching a court
order and was imprisoned for 31 days.
The MPTS tribunal need to determine if:
(1) the facts alleged have been found proved;
(2) the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired;
(3) any action should be taken.
Each positive result in one step does not mean that the following step
is inevitable.
The tribunal can conclude that no action need be taken.
She could be struck off the medical register in the same way that she
could be struck by a meteorite, or lightning, on her way to the tribunal.
Dr Benn is the first of three GPs that will need to face a MPTS tribunal
as a result of breaching court orders whilst supporting JSO hence JSO
issuing a press release and trying to whip up sympathy for Dr Benn as
the following MPTS tribunals will likely take their lead from the first.
Personally, I find it quite right and proper that a doctor that breaches court orders on numerous occasions and is imprisoned as a result should
have their behaviour formally reviewed by their professional body.
The same would certainly happen to someone working in the legal field
and numerous other professional fields.
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off makes
a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might have no
action taken.
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
From the article you cited:
Dr Sarah Benn, a GP from Birmingham, was arrested after taking part in a
Just Stop Oil protest in Warwickshire in 2022.
She was subsequently found to be in breach of a civil injunction and was imprisoned for 31 days.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service is holding a hearing to
decide if Dr. Benn can maintain her licence to practice medicine.
The MPTS have provided more details of the hearing (which again is
quoted in the article you cited):
"The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 26 April 2022, 4
May 2022 and 14 September 2022, Dr Benn engaged in peaceful protest
within a prohibited buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in breach of
an interim injunction granted on 14 April 2022.
"It is alleged that Dr Benn's actions amounted to a contempt of court
and resulted in a custodial service."
It is not her ability that is being questioned, but her fitness to
practise.
Personally, I find it quite right and proper that a doctor that breaches court orders on numerous occasions and is imprisoned as a result should
have their behaviour formally reviewed by their professional body.
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off makes
a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might have no
action taken.
Roger Hayter wrote:
The GMC used to be run by doctors but is now a government agency
You'd never think so from reading their website ...
On 18/04/2024 13:33, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off makes
a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might have no
action taken.
Yes, you are probably right, but I was getting into the spirit of things
:-).
Why? I was hoping someone would explain why they thought it is a good
idea. I wondered if there was a reason other than providing an obvious mechanism to increase the power of the state to punish political dissidents.
On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or
not deployed as part of a protest.
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
Within reason, professions require practitioners to be of good character.
Convictions for certain types of offence (not all) will breach that requirement.
On 18/04/2024 13:35, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect
her performance delivering GP services...
On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or
not deployed as part of a protest.
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't understand is what
this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she could be struck
off the medical register?
Within reason, professions require practitioners to be of good character.
Convictions for certain types of offence (not all) will breach that requirement.
On 18/04/2024 13:33, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off
makes a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might
have no action taken.
Even so, the hearing is over a week long, which in itself is a
punishment. Her defence costs will be considerable,
although her PI
insurance may cover that.
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
On 18/04/2024 13:35, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
her performance delivering GP services.
There's no problem whatsoever with her having attended an oil protest.
There is a problem with breaching a court order on numerous occasions
which may amount to a contempt of court which is a serious issue for a doctor.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for 31
days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
From the article you cited:
Dr Sarah Benn, a GP from Birmingham, was arrested after taking part in
a Just Stop Oil protest in Warwickshire in 2022.
She was subsequently found to be in breach of a civil injunction and
was imprisoned for 31 days.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service is holding a hearing to
decide if Dr. Benn can maintain her licence to practice medicine.
The MPTS have provided more details of the hearing (which again is
quoted in the article you cited):
"The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 26 April 2022,
4 May 2022 and 14 September 2022, Dr Benn engaged in peaceful protest
within a prohibited buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in breach of
an interim injunction granted on 14 April 2022.
"It is alleged that Dr Benn's actions amounted to a contempt of court
and resulted in a custodial service."
It is not her ability that is being questioned, but her fitness to
practise.
I do not understand the difference between “her ability to act as GP”
and her fitness to practice.
My metric for fitness is how well someone delivers a GP service. I do
not see how that is affected by political activism.
Perhaps it may help your reasoning if you consider how many GP
appointments she fulfilled during her period of imprisonment.
And how her patients were supposed to access GP services during the
period of her imprisonment.
The protesting isn't the issue.
Deliberately breaching court orders on multiple occasions and being imprisoned as a result are the issues that have landed her before an
MPTS tribunal.
[snip]
Personally, I find it quite right and proper that a doctor thatWhy? I was hoping someone would explain why they thought it is a good
breaches court orders on numerous occasions and is imprisoned as a
result should have their behaviour formally reviewed by their
professional body.
idea. I wondered if there was a reason other than providing an obvious
mechanism to increase the power of the state to punish political
dissidents.
As I've just said in a parallel post to Jon Ribbens, both individual
patients of a specific doctor and the wider public in general, must be
able to trust that doctors will abide by the rule of law.
Were that not the case, what happens if the court makes an order
regarding a patient's treatment and a doctor refuses to comply with the
court order because he doesn't agree with it?
Or what happens if a doctor is repeatedly unable to perform their duties
for months at a time because they have been imprisoned? For how long is their employer to be expected to keep the position open? For how many instances of incarceration should they do this?
Regards
S.P.
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
On 18/04/2024 13:35, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
her performance delivering GP services.
There's no problem whatsoever with her having attended an oil protest.
There is a problem with breaching a court order on numerous occasions
which may amount to a contempt of court which is a serious issue for a doctor.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for 31
days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
From the article you cited:
Dr Sarah Benn, a GP from Birmingham, was arrested after taking part in
a Just Stop Oil protest in Warwickshire in 2022.
She was subsequently found to be in breach of a civil injunction and
was imprisoned for 31 days.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service is holding a hearing to
decide if Dr. Benn can maintain her licence to practice medicine.
The MPTS have provided more details of the hearing (which again is
quoted in the article you cited):
"The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 26 April 2022,
4 May 2022 and 14 September 2022, Dr Benn engaged in peaceful protest
within a prohibited buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in breach of
an interim injunction granted on 14 April 2022.
"It is alleged that Dr Benn's actions amounted to a contempt of court
and resulted in a custodial service."
It is not her ability that is being questioned, but her fitness to
practise.
I do not understand the difference between “her ability to act as GP”
and her fitness to practice.
My metric for fitness is how well someone delivers a GP service. I do
not see how that is affected by political activism.
Perhaps it may help your reasoning if you consider how many GP
appointments she fulfilled during her period of imprisonment.
And how her patients were supposed to access GP services during the
period of her imprisonment.
The protesting isn't the issue.
Deliberately breaching court orders on multiple occasions and being imprisoned as a result are the issues that have landed her before an
MPTS tribunal.
[snip]
Personally, I find it quite right and proper that a doctor thatWhy? I was hoping someone would explain why they thought it is a good
breaches court orders on numerous occasions and is imprisoned as a
result should have their behaviour formally reviewed by their
professional body.
idea. I wondered if there was a reason other than providing an obvious
mechanism to increase the power of the state to punish political
dissidents.
As I've just said in a parallel post to Jon Ribbens, both individual
patients of a specific doctor and the wider public in general, must be
able to trust that doctors will abide by the rule of law.
Were that not the case, what happens if the court makes an order
regarding a patient's treatment and a doctor refuses to comply with the
court order because he doesn't agree with it?
Or what happens if a doctor is repeatedly unable to perform their dutiesAgain that is an employment matter and only indirectly (because lack of
for months at a time because they have been imprisoned? For how long is their employer to be expected to keep the position open? For how many instances of incarceration should they do this?
Regards
S.P.
On 2024-04-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
What on earth protesting about climate change has to do with medical
fitness to practice.
On 18/04/2024 17:20, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:Well someone who is spending their time attending numerous protests with
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for protesting, >>
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or
not deployed as part of a protest.
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't understand is what
this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she could be struck
off the medical register?
Within reason, professions require practitioners to be of good character.
Convictions for certain types of offence (not all) will breach that
requirement.
time off for court appearances, is hardly likely to be in a position to
also provide a reliable and consistent service as a GP.
On 18/04/2024 16:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What on earth protesting about climate change has to do with medical
fitness to practice. Most people would probably say the one has nothing
whatsoever to do with the other. If she had been going on "anti-vax"
protests then it might be a different matter.
The issue, which was made quite clear in my post, is that she has been arrested on three separate occasions for breaching a court order which
led to her being imprisoned for 31 days.
Let's say her former partner had obtained an injunction banning her from coming within 200 metres of them and she'd been arrested on three
separate occasions for breaching that order and then imprisoned for 31
days as a result.
Would you consider it reasonable for the MPTS to hold a tribunal in
those circumstances and why do you so answer?
"The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 26 April 2022, 4
May 2022 and 14 September 2022, Dr Benn engaged in peaceful protest
within a prohibited buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in breach of
an interim injunction granted on 14 April 2022.
So, they are considering whether to award her some sort of medal or
other commendation?
No, as was made clear in my previous post, a key consideration will be whether or not her actions amounted to a contempt of court.
A second key consideration would be around her custodial service.
Why is that being questioned when there is no question of there being
a problem with it?
How many of Dr Benn's patients were able to obtain an appointment with
her, as their GP, whilst she was imprisoned for 31 days?
Were she to continue protesting in a similar manner and receive a
similar or longer sentence in future, from where should Dr Benn's
patients procure GP services whilst she is imprisoned?
For how long should her employer keep her role open before considering disciplinary action? How many periods of imprisonment do you think they should tolerate before considering that she is unable to perform the
duties of her contract of employment?
She has been arrested on three separate occasions for breaching a court
order and was imprisoned for 31 days.
The MPTS tribunal need to determine if:
(1) the facts alleged have been found proved;
(2) the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired;
(3) any action should be taken.
Why do they need to determine any of that?
Because that's how MPTS tribunals work
She could be struck off the medical register in the same way that sheWhat on earth is that supposed to mean?
could be struck by a meteorite, or lightning, on her way to the tribunal. >>
I'm sure if you think about it for long enough you might be able to come
up with an obscure and deeply-hidden reason why the likelihood of Dr
Benn being struck off the medical register at this tribunal might be
compared to the likelihood of her being struck by lightning or a
meteorite on her way to attend the tribunal each day.
If so, isn't that a problem that somebody should fix rather urgently?
You sound like just the man for the job. I beseech you to reach out to
them with your concerns as as matter of great urgency and proffer your services forthwith(!).
Dr Benn is the first of three GPs that will need to face a MPTS tribunal >>> as a result of breaching court orders whilst supporting JSO hence JSO
issuing a press release and trying to whip up sympathy for Dr Benn as
the following MPTS tribunals will likely take their lead from the first.
Well it's working.
Thankfully, I expect the MPTS tribunal members, at least one of whom is likely to be legally qualified, to give the JSO press release the full consideration it deserves when it comes to their deliberations.
Personally, I find it quite right and proper that a doctor that breaches >>> court orders on numerous occasions and is imprisoned as a result should
have their behaviour formally reviewed by their professional body.
Because...?
She deliberately breached court orders which may amount to a contempt of court. Doctors literally have people's lives in their hands. A
doctor's patients and the wider public at large must be able to trust a doctor to abide by the rule of law.
Furthermore, as a consequence of deliberately breaching court orders,
she was imprisoned for 31 days. During that period, she was unable to perform her contracted duties. Were she to continue breaching court
orders, the likelihood of further imprisonment, possibly for increasing durations, remains a risk that needs to be considered.
I'm sure if you think about it for long enough you might be able to come
up with an obscure and deeply-hidden reason why a *lawyer* breaking the
*law* is a problem in a way that doesn't apply to people in most other
professions.
I respectfully disagree and invite you to read the following "Reasons"
from the Employment Tribunal that considered the case of Mr Niamke
Doffou v Sainsbury's Supermarket's Limited earlier this year, recently published and therefore in the news of late. [^1]
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:21:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she >>>> could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
What on earth protesting about climate change has to do with medical
fitness to practice.
It's not the protesting. It's the fact that she has a criminal conviction
for which she has been imprisoned. The reason why she now has that criminal record is immaterial insofar as the review is concerned, any conviction will automatically trigger a review.
When she gets to the review, she can, of course, argue that her actions were justifiable and that her conviction does not affect her ability to practice. And the panel may well agree with her. But that's an argument which needs to be made to the review panel, and a decision which needs to be made by the review panel.
Mark
As I've just said in a parallel post to Jon Ribbens, both individual
patients of a specific doctor and the wider public in general, must be
able to trust that doctors will abide by the rule of law.
Were that not the case, what happens if the court makes an order
regarding a patient's treatment and a doctor refuses to comply with the
court order because he doesn't agree with it?
Or what happens if a doctor is repeatedly unable to perform their duties
for months at a time because they have been imprisoned? For how long is their employer to be expected to keep the position open? For how many instances of incarceration should they do this?
On 18 Apr 2024 at 20:12:02 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
On 18/04/2024 13:35, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why
she could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
her performance delivering GP services.
There's no problem whatsoever with her having attended an oil protest.
There is a problem with breaching a court order on numerous occasions
which may amount to a contempt of court which is a serious issue for a
doctor.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for 31
days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance
delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
*If* the tribunal is taking this position then it is probably misdirecting itself. If the doctor is a GP partner then she and any other partners are responsible for finding replacement staff. If she was not a partner then the employing practice has to find a replacement...
On 18/04/2024 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 20:12:02 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
On 18/04/2024 13:35, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect >>>> her performance delivering GP services.
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why >>>>>> she could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
There's no problem whatsoever with her having attended an oil protest.
There is a problem with breaching a court order on numerous occasions
which may amount to a contempt of court which is a serious issue for a
doctor.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for 31
days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance
delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
*If* the tribunal is taking this position then it is probably misdirecting >> itself. If the doctor is a GP partner then she and any other partners are
responsible for finding replacement staff. If she was not a partner then the >> employing practice has to find a replacement...
At very short notice, in an environment where there is a serious
shortage of GPs. My GP surgery typically takes months to fill a vacancy,
even with a temporary GP.
On 18 Apr 2024 at 21:55:11 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:21:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she >>>>> could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
What on earth protesting about climate change has to do with medical
fitness to practice.
It's not the protesting. It's the fact that she has a criminal conviction
for which she has been imprisoned. The reason why she now has that criminal >> record is immaterial insofar as the review is concerned, any conviction will >> automatically trigger a review.
Is it actually a criminal conviction?
When she gets to the review, she can, of course, argue that her actions were >> justifiable and that her conviction does not affect her ability to practice. >> And the panel may well agree with her. But that's an argument which needs to >> be made to the review panel, and a decision which needs to be made by the
review panel.
Mark
On 18/04/2024 22:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
Is it actually a criminal conviction?
Is it possible for a custodial sentence to be imposed for anything other
than a criminal conviction?
On 18 Apr 2024 at 23:06:18 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 20:12:02 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
On 18/04/2024 13:35, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect >>>>> her performance delivering GP services.
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why >>>>>>> she could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
There's no problem whatsoever with her having attended an oil protest. >>>>
There is a problem with breaching a court order on numerous occasions
which may amount to a contempt of court which is a serious issue for a >>>> doctor.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for 31 >>>> days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance
delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
*If* the tribunal is taking this position then it is probably misdirecting >>> itself. If the doctor is a GP partner then she and any other partners are >>> responsible for finding replacement staff. If she was not a partner then the
employing practice has to find a replacement...
At very short notice, in an environment where there is a serious
shortage of GPs. My GP surgery typically takes months to fill a vacancy,
even with a temporary GP.
What makes you think she gave them very short notice? Do you have any evidence for this? Unlike you, she knew when her case would be heard and may well have known the likely outcome.
On 18/04/2024 22:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 21:55:11 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:21:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she >>>>>> could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
What on earth protesting about climate change has to do with medical
fitness to practice.
It's not the protesting. It's the fact that she has a criminal conviction >>> for which she has been imprisoned. The reason why she now has that criminal >>> record is immaterial insofar as the review is concerned, any conviction will
automatically trigger a review.
Is it actually a criminal conviction?
Is it possible for a custodial sentence to be imposed for anything other
than a criminal conviction?
When she gets to the review, she can, of course, argue that her actions were
justifiable and that her conviction does not affect her ability to practice.
And the panel may well agree with her. But that's an argument which needs to
be made to the review panel, and a decision which needs to be made by the >>> review panel.
Mark
On 18 Apr 2024 at 17:20:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or
not deployed as part of a protest.
You are mistaken. The "offence" was to do something which breached a civil injunction, which act might otherwise have been completely legal.
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
Within reason, professions require practitioners to be of good character.
Convictions for certain types of offence (not all) will breach that
requirement.
On 18/04/2024 17:20, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:Well someone who is spending their time attending numerous protests with
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or
not deployed as part of a protest.
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't understand is what
this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she could be struck
off the medical register?
Within reason, professions require practitioners to be of good character.
Convictions for certain types of offence (not all) will breach that
requirement.
time off for court appearances, is hardly likely to be in a position to
also provide a reliable and consistent service as a GP.
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
[snip]
As I've just said in a parallel post to Jon Ribbens, both individual
patients of a specific doctor and the wider public in general, must be
able to trust that doctors will abide by the rule of law.
Personally, I know my doctor doesn't obey the law, and that is with
respect to things relevant to my treatment. I know the NHS do not obey
the law.
In general, there is no practical way to force doctors to obey the law.
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off
makes a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might
have no action taken.
Even so, the hearing is over a week long, which in itself is a
punishment. Her defence costs will be considerable,
All of which could have been avoided by not getting a criminal
conviction in the first place.
although her PI insurance may cover that.
In this particular case, I think she will avoid any significant sanctions. But she can't avoid the review itself, since that's *an automatic consequence of a conviction*.
Is it possible for a custodial sentence to be imposed for anything other
than a criminal conviction?
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for 31
days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
On 19/04/2024 00:21, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 23:06:18 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 20:12:02 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
On 18/04/2024 13:35, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect >>>>>> her performance delivering GP services.
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't >>>>>>>> understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why >>>>>>>> she could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
There's no problem whatsoever with her having attended an oil protest. >>>>>
There is a problem with breaching a court order on numerous occasions >>>>> which may amount to a contempt of court which is a serious issue for a >>>>> doctor.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for 31 >>>>> days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance >>>>> delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
*If* the tribunal is taking this position then it is probably misdirecting >>>> itself. If the doctor is a GP partner then she and any other partners are >>>> responsible for finding replacement staff. If she was not a partner then the
employing practice has to find a replacement...
At very short notice, in an environment where there is a serious
shortage of GPs. My GP surgery typically takes months to fill a vacancy, >>> even with a temporary GP.
What makes you think she gave them very short notice? Do you have any
evidence for this? Unlike you, she knew when her case would be heard and may >> well have known the likely outcome.
She wouldn't have known the length of the sentence, if any, which would
have meant that it would be very difficult to recruit a stand-in until
the verdict was known.
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for
31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance
delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for failing
to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for example.
The point must surely be that the circumstances of this case warrant a tribunal. Doctors break the law in minor ways all the time, as do many
of us, but few such transgressions result in a tribunal hearing. So, an explanation of why a tribunal hearing is necessary in this case would be helpful.
I suspect that the answer lies in the detail of the GMC rules. For
example, they may require a tribunal in any case where a custodial
sentence has been imposed.
On 18/04/2024 07:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 17:20:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or
not deployed as part of a protest.
You are mistaken. The "offence" was to do something which breached a civil >> injunction, which act might otherwise have been completely legal.
A bit like an ASBO (or whatever the current name for that is), in effect.
For perfectly valid reasons of which we are aware and do not need to
discuss, behaviour which is ostensibly lawful - such as knocking on your front door at 01:00 - might be the subject of a legal prohibition order. Breaching such an order, whether it is one operating in general within
an area or applying specifically to the individual is subject to sanction.
Is this not well-known?
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she >>>> could be struck off the medical register?
Within reason, professions require practitioners to be of good character. >>
Convictions for certain types of offence (not all) will breach that
requirement.
On 18/04/2024 19:45, Colin Bignell wrote:
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off
makes a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might
have no action taken.
Even so, the hearing is over a week long, which in itself is a
punishment. Her defence costs will be considerable,
All of which could have been avoided by not getting a criminal
conviction in the first place.
That's rather begging the question. The point the OP was making is that
there must be a filter mechanism in place, for the GMC to decide which
cases deserve a full tribunal hearing, and it's not clear why oil
protesters have been flagged up for a hearing.
On 18/04/2024 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
In this particular case, I think she will avoid any significant sanctions. >> But she can't avoid the review itself, since that's *an automatic consequence
of a conviction*.
Do you have a reference for that? I wouldn't expect a doctor convicted
for speeding to be hauled before a tribunal. But ICBW.
On 18/04/2024 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
In this particular case, I think she will avoid any significant
sanctions.
But she can't avoid the review itself, since that's *an automatic
consequence
of a conviction*.
Do you have a reference for that? I wouldn't expect a doctor convicted
for speeding to be hauled before a tribunal. But ICBW.
On 18/04/2024 19:45, Colin Bignell wrote:
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off
makes a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might
have no action taken.
Even so, the hearing is over a week long, which in itself is a
punishment. Her defence costs will be considerable,
All of which could have been avoided by not getting a criminal
conviction in the first place.
That's rather begging the question. The point the OP was making is that
there must be a filter mechanism in place, for the GMC to decide which
cases deserve a full tribunal hearing,
and it's not clear why oil
protesters have been flagged up for a hearing.
On 19/04/2024 11:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
In this particular case, I think she will avoid any significant
sanctions.
But she can't avoid the review itself, since that's *an automatic
consequence
of a conviction*.
Do you have a reference for that? I wouldn't expect a doctor convicted
for speeding to be hauled before a tribunal. But ICBW.
This is the guidance as to what has to be declared:
https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/contracts/criminal-record-checks-and-declarations/declaring-a-criminal-conviction
Note the paragraph about it being part of the contract of employment.
On 19/04/2024 11:42, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 19:45, Colin Bignell wrote:
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare
criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that
could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off
makes a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might >>>>> have no action taken.
Even so, the hearing is over a week long, which in itself is a
punishment. Her defence costs will be considerable,
All of which could have been avoided by not getting a criminal
conviction in the first place.
That's rather begging the question. The point the OP was making is that
there must be a filter mechanism in place, for the GMC to decide which
cases deserve a full tribunal hearing, and it's not clear why oil
protesters have been flagged up for a hearing.
The "filter mechanism", to use your term, is "a conviction resulting in
the imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended".
In the instant case, the doctor self-reported each arrest and the
subsequent imprisonment, as she was required to do.
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that
"the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the
imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended,
directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a
Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
On 19/04/2024 11:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
In this particular case, I think she will avoid any significant
sanctions.
But she can't avoid the review itself, since that's *an automatic
consequence
of a conviction*.
Do you have a reference for that? I wouldn't expect a doctor convicted
for speeding to be hauled before a tribunal. But ICBW.
The General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004, Rule 5.
As detailed in a post elsewhere to the thread, for a conviction there is
some discretion and a Registrar may refer the matter to Case Examiners
who may do the equivalent of issuing an NFA.
However, the imposition of a custodial sentence, even a suspended one,
is a mandatory referral to the MPTS who must arrange for a tribunal to consider the matter.
Regards
S.P.
On 18/04/2024 22:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 16:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What on earth protesting about climate change has to do with medical
fitness to practice. Most people would probably say the one has nothing >>>> whatsoever to do with the other. If she had been going on "anti-vax"
protests then it might be a different matter.
The issue, which was made quite clear in my post, is that she has been
arrested on three separate occasions for breaching a court order which
led to her being imprisoned for 31 days.
Ok. What's that got to do with anything?
Each arrest required a referral to a Registrar of the GMC.
The imposition of a custodial sentence required a mandatory MPTS Tribunal.
Contrariwise, attending a JSO protest did not require referral to a
Registrar of the GMC.
It is *nothing* to do with attending a JSO protest and *everything* to
do with being arrested multiple times for breaching a court order and
being imprisoned as a consequence.
Let's say her former partner had obtained an injunction banning her from >>> coming within 200 metres of them and she'd been arrested on three
separate occasions for breaching that order and then imprisoned for 31
days as a result.
Would you consider it reasonable for the MPTS to hold a tribunal in
those circumstances and why do you so answer?
I'd need to know more information, but it seems likely that it would
be reasonable, because she would be demonstrating that she couldn't be
trusted around people, which is kind've important for a doctor - unlike
anything the doctor we are actually talking about has actually done.
No further information is required, but thank you for confirming that
you are posting from a position of ignorance.
And they are considering giving her a medal or other commendation on
this basis?
I do not believe they are considering giving her a medal or other commendation on this basis, no. Why do you think the tribunal has been convened?
Why is that being questioned when there is no question of there being
a problem with it?
How many of Dr Benn's patients were able to obtain an appointment with
her, as their GP, whilst she was imprisoned for 31 days?
Were she to continue protesting in a similar manner and receive a
similar or longer sentence in future, from where should Dr Benn's
patients procure GP services whilst she is imprisoned?
For how long should her employer keep her role open before considering
disciplinary action? How many periods of imprisonment do you think they >>> should tolerate before considering that she is unable to perform the
duties of her contract of employment?
What on earth does any of that have to do with being potentially struck
off the medical register (or suspended, or threatened with future
suspensions or strikings-off, or whatever).
I know you think she was 'fighting for a noble cause', (and I've been
careful not to express an opinion on that either way), but she knew the consequences of being arrested and the likelihood of being imprisoned
with each subsequent arrest. Furthermore, she knew that imprisonment
would automatically trigger a tribunal.
She can't now turn around and say, "Well this is most unexpected." or
"This is most unfair." She knew the likely consequences of her actions.
she went ahead and did it anyway. She must now face the consequences, whatever they may be.
To her credit, she's actually said as much.
She could be struck off the medical register in the same way that she >>>>> could be struck by a meteorite, or lightning, on her way to the
tribunal.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
I'm sure if you think about it for long enough you might be able to come >>> up with an obscure and deeply-hidden reason why the likelihood of Dr
Benn being struck off the medical register at this tribunal might be
compared to the likelihood of her being struck by lightning or a
meteorite on her way to attend the tribunal each day.
Ok, so I assume that you were, in an amnbiguous and convoluted way,
saying that it is incredibly unlikely she will be struck off.
There was nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it. Stating that [x]
could happen 'in the same way' as [y] or [z] could happen, when it is
known that [y] and [z] are incredibly unlikely events is a clear
expression that I consider [x] to be as unlikely as [y] or [z].
Thankfully, I expect the MPTS tribunal members, at least one of whom is
likely to be legally qualified, to give the JSO press release the full
consideration it deserves when it comes to their deliberations.
You think that JSO is trying to influence the tribunal, rather than
the public? That seems rather a long shot, especially if it is true
that, as you apparently say, it is extremely unlikely that they would
be considering striking-off regardless.
Influencing the tribunal and the public are not mutually exclusive.
Rather, whipping up the latter can be an indirect means of influencing
the former, as I'm sure you know.
Personally, I find it quite right and proper that a doctor that breaches >>>>> court orders on numerous occasions and is imprisoned as a result should >>>>> have their behaviour formally reviewed by their professional body.
Because...?
She deliberately breached court orders which may amount to a contempt of >>> court. Doctors literally have people's lives in their hands. A
doctor's patients and the wider public at large must be able to trust a
doctor to abide by the rule of law.
Because...?
I recommend re-reading the above paragraph. The answer you seek is
there if you look more carefully second time around.
I'm sure if you think about it for long enough you might be able to come >>>> up with an obscure and deeply-hidden reason why a *lawyer* breaking the >>>> *law* is a problem in a way that doesn't apply to people in most other >>>> professions.
I respectfully disagree and invite you to read the following "Reasons"
from the Employment Tribunal that considered the case of Mr Niamke
Doffou v Sainsbury's Supermarket's Limited earlier this year, recently
published and therefore in the news of late. [^1]
Ok I've read that. What in the name of Samwise Gamgee do you think that
a case involving a person being sacked by their employer for theft from
said employer has even remotely to do with a MPTS tribunal considering
a doctor who is not suspected of any wrongdoing against their employer,
indeed not suspected of any dishonesty at all?
Workers breaking the law, especially in regulated professions, has consequences beyond those that may be imposed by the legal system. In
Mr Doffou's case, the value of the goods taken, and the possibility that
it may have been an inadvertent error meant he faced no criminal
sanctions. But he still lost his job. Your claim was that the
consequences of "a lawyer breaking the law" is vastly different to "most other professions". I provided an example, (and chose the one I did
mainly because it was recently published and therefore was foremost in
my mind), of a lowly shop worker, (i.e. not a "regulated profession")
facing severe consequences for an action he claims was unintentional.
Compare and contrast with the doctor in the instant case who knew the consequences of arrest and imprisonment in advance of her arrest and subsequent imprisonment.
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for
31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance
delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for
failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
The point must surely be that the circumstances of this case warrant a
tribunal. Doctors break the law in minor ways all the time, as do many
of us, but few such transgressions result in a tribunal hearing. So,
an explanation of why a tribunal hearing is necessary in this case
would be helpful.
I suspect that the answer lies in the detail of the GMC rules. For
example, they may require a tribunal in any case where a custodial
sentence has been imposed.
They do.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:46:40 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
In this particular case, I think she will avoid any significant sanctions. >>> But she can't avoid the review itself, since that's *an automatic consequence
of a conviction*.
Do you have a reference for that? I wouldn't expect a doctor convicted
for speeding to be hauled before a tribunal. But ICBW.
The GMC's website says that medical professionals they regulate will be referred to a tribunal for "a criminal conviction or caution"[1]. It doesn't go into detail, but I suspect that offences (eg, speeding) dealt with by means of an FPN don't count, as they don't appear on your criminal record either. My presumption is that it's only recordable offences, as defined by PACE (ie, offences which will appear on a standard DBS check), which would trigger a referral by the GMC to a tribunal. But anything which carries a prison sentence (whether imposed or not) is recordable.
[1] https://tinyurl.com/yp9aer94 as shortened from https://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/information-for-doctors-under-investigation/our-sanctions/referral-for-a-hearing-at-the-mpts
Mark
Well since she has been engaging in meritorious conduct, one would hope
that they have been convened to consider if she should be awarded some
sort of award.
When she gets to the review, she can, of course, argue that her actions were >> justifiable and that her conviction does not affect her ability to practice.
She's actually issued a statement ahead of appearing at the tribunal:
"As a doctor, my fundamental duty is to protect health and life. This >includes proactive efforts to prevent disease and death. The climate
crisis is the most significant existential threat to global health we
have ever faced. It's disheartening to see governments worldwide declare >climate emergencies, yet fail to act beyond these declarations. In
medicine, when an emergency is declared, immediate action is
expected—not just words. This is the essence of our job, and it's often
a daunting responsibility, but it is essential.
"This is why I felt compelled to address what I see as the most critical >health crisis currently unfolding—one that is already causing widespread >death, disease, and destruction globally and is set to worsen. We're
trained as doctors to intervene decisively to avert tragedy, therefore,
this situation requires nothing less than decisive intervention.
"While initiatives like 'greening the NHS' are commendable and would
have been a welcome start in the 1980s, today's crisis demands more
radical and immediate action. We are out of time, with only a narrow
window remaining to prevent a total collapse of our systems.
"The protests and disruptions I've participated in are not actions I
take lightly. I find no joy in causing inconvenience or distress.
However, we must be clear about the magnitude of the crisis we face. The >disruptions caused by peaceful protest are nothing compared to the >catastrophic impacts of continuing to burn fossil fuels.
"I have been clear about my reasons for taking action from the very
start. I will be sad and upset if I am removed from the register, but
that will have no effect on my future plans. I will continue carrying
out what I believe is my responsibility as long as the government
refuses to commit to stopping oil and gas."
On 19 Apr 2024 at 11:08:13 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 07:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 17:20:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or
not deployed as part of a protest.
You are mistaken. The "offence" was to do something which breached a civil >>> injunction, which act might otherwise have been completely legal.
A bit like an ASBO (or whatever the current name for that is), in effect.
For perfectly valid reasons of which we are aware and do not need to
discuss, behaviour which is ostensibly lawful - such as knocking on your
front door at 01:00 - might be the subject of a legal prohibition order.
Breaching such an order, whether it is one operating in general within
an area or applying specifically to the individual is subject to sanction. >>
Is this not well-known?
Breaching an ASBO *is* (or at least usually is) a criminal offence. ASBOs are part of the criminal law, not civil injunctions.
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she >>>>> could be struck off the medical register?
Within reason, professions require practitioners to be of good character. >>>> Convictions for certain types of offence (not all) will breach that
requirement.
On 18/04/2024 21:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:21:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 11:04, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she >>>>> could be struck off the medical register?
What don't you understand?
What on earth protesting about climate change has to do with medical
fitness to practice.
It's not the protesting. It's the fact that she has a criminal conviction
for which she has been imprisoned. The reason why she now has that criminal >> record is immaterial insofar as the review is concerned, any conviction will >> automatically trigger a review.
Point of Order#1: In the instant case, it isn't a criminal conviction
that is an issue, but that she was arrested on three separate occasions,
each of which must be reported to the GMC.
Point of Order#2: Her imprisonment is the trigger for a mandatory tribunal.
When she gets to the review, she can, of course, argue that her actions were >> justifiable and that her conviction does not affect her ability to practice.
She's actually issued a statement ahead of appearing at the tribunal:
"As a doctor, my fundamental duty is to protect health and life. This includes proactive efforts to prevent disease and death. The climate
crisis is the most significant existential threat to global health we
have ever faced. It's disheartening to see governments worldwide declare climate emergencies, yet fail to act beyond these declarations. In
medicine, when an emergency is declared, immediate action is
expected—not just words. This is the essence of our job, and it's often
a daunting responsibility, but it is essential.
"This is why I felt compelled to address what I see as the most critical health crisis currently unfolding—one that is already causing widespread death, disease, and destruction globally and is set to worsen. We're
trained as doctors to intervene decisively to avert tragedy, therefore,
this situation requires nothing less than decisive intervention.
"While initiatives like 'greening the NHS' are commendable and would
have been a welcome start in the 1980s, today's crisis demands more
radical and immediate action. We are out of time, with only a narrow
window remaining to prevent a total collapse of our systems.
"The protests and disruptions I've participated in are not actions I
take lightly. I find no joy in causing inconvenience or distress.
However, we must be clear about the magnitude of the crisis we face. The disruptions caused by peaceful protest are nothing compared to the catastrophic impacts of continuing to burn fossil fuels.
"I have been clear about my reasons for taking action from the very
start. I will be sad and upset if I am removed from the register, but
that will have no effect on my future plans. I will continue carrying
out what I believe is my responsibility as long as the government
refuses to commit to stopping oil and gas."
And the panel may well agree with her. But that's an argument which needs to >> be made to the review panel, and a decision which needs to be made by the
review panel.
On 19 Apr 2024 23:31:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:05:10 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >>wrote:
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that
"the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the
imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended,
directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a
Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial
sentence in the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am
not sure, as it did not result from a conviction, that they were
obliged to do so.
How is it *not* a conviction?
On 20/04/2024 01:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well since she has been engaging in meritorious conduct, one would hope
that they have been convened to consider if she should be awarded some
sort of award.
JSO have the same mentality as those who blame the sugar companies for
people ruining their health with sugar. It's convenient to blame someone else, rather than taking responsibility for the crap we choose to stuff
into ourselves.
If we simply stopped using oil overnight
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for
31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her
"performance delivering GP services" during the period of her
imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for
failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured whilst
taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
The point must surely be that the circumstances of this case warrant
a tribunal. Doctors break the law in minor ways all the time, as do
many of us, but few such transgressions result in a tribunal hearing.
So, an explanation of why a tribunal hearing is necessary in this
case would be helpful.
I suspect that the answer lies in the detail of the GMC rules. For
example, they may require a tribunal in any case where a custodial
sentence has been imposed.
They do.
On 20/04/2024 01:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well since she has been engaging in meritorious conduct, one would hope
that they have been convened to consider if she should be awarded some
sort of award.
JSO have the same mentality as those who blame the sugar companies for
people ruining their health with sugar. It's convenient to blame someone else, rather than taking responsibility for the crap we choose to stuff
into ourselves.
If we simply stopped using oil overnight, our present society could not function, and we would have mass starvation. In medieval times, this
country could only support a population of around 3 million, and without power that's roughly the population that could be supported now.
Whilst climate change is serious, the transition to zero carbon needs to
be managed, and starving 95% of the population to death, whilst
undoubtedly effective, is not the best way to do it.
So, maybe, the good doctor's fitness to practise does need to be examined?
On 19 Apr 2024 23:31:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:In the same way that a cabbage is not a conviction. It is a worthy thing in
On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:05:10 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 19/04/2024 11:42, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 19:45, Colin Bignell wrote:
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare >>>>>>> criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that >>>>>>> could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off >>>>>>> makes a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might >>>>>>> have no action taken.
Even so, the hearing is over a week long, which in itself is a
punishment. Her defence costs will be considerable,
All of which could have been avoided by not getting a criminal
conviction in the first place.
That's rather begging the question. The point the OP was making is that >>>> there must be a filter mechanism in place, for the GMC to decide which >>>> cases deserve a full tribunal hearing, and it's not clear why oil
protesters have been flagged up for a hearing.
The "filter mechanism", to use your term, is "a conviction resulting in
the imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended". >>>
In the instant case, the doctor self-reported each arrest and the
subsequent imprisonment, as she was required to do.
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that
"the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the
imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended,
directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a
Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial sentence in
the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am not sure, as it did
not result from a conviction, that they were obliged to do so.
How is it *not* a conviction?
On 19/04/2024 21:03, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:46:40 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 18/04/2024 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
In this particular case, I think she will avoid any significant sanctions. >>>> But she can't avoid the review itself, since that's *an automatic consequence
of a conviction*.
Do you have a reference for that? I wouldn't expect a doctor convicted
for speeding to be hauled before a tribunal. But ICBW.
The GMC's website says that medical professionals they regulate will be
referred to a tribunal for "a criminal conviction or caution"[1]. It doesn't >> go into detail, but I suspect that offences (eg, speeding) dealt with by
means of an FPN don't count, as they don't appear on your criminal record
either. My presumption is that it's only recordable offences, as defined by >> PACE (ie, offences which will appear on a standard DBS check), which would >> trigger a referral by the GMC to a tribunal. But anything which carries a
prison sentence (whether imposed or not) is recordable.
[1] https://tinyurl.com/yp9aer94 as shortened from
https://www.gmc-uk.org/concerns/information-for-doctors-under-investigation/our-sanctions/referral-for-a-hearing-at-the-mpts
Mark
Thanks for the reference. It also says:
"We also consider whether the doctor’s failings are easily remediable, whether they have been remedied (and to what extent), and whether they
are likely to be repeated.
Case examiners can recommend that the doctor is invited to comply with undertakings, without the need for a medical practitioners tribunal
hearing, where that would be sufficient to protect patients and maintain public confidence."
I think that an undertaking would have been sufficient, but, alas, I
don't think the doctor was prepared to sign one.
Even so, given that a severe sanction seems unlikely, a tribunal hearing seems like a waste of public money. Not to mention the doctor's.
On 19/04/2024 07:57 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 11:08:13 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 07:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 17:20:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or >>>>> not deployed as part of a protest.
You are mistaken. The "offence" was to do something which breached a civil >>>> injunction, which act might otherwise have been completely legal.
A bit like an ASBO (or whatever the current name for that is), in effect. >>>
For perfectly valid reasons of which we are aware and do not need to
discuss, behaviour which is ostensibly lawful - such as knocking on your >>> front door at 01:00 - might be the subject of a legal prohibition order. >>> Breaching such an order, whether it is one operating in general within
an area or applying specifically to the individual is subject to sanction. >>>
Is this not well-known?
Breaching an ASBO *is* (or at least usually is) a criminal offence. ASBOs are
part of the criminal law, not civil injunctions.
And that is why I used the phrase "a bit like an ASBO".
And it is a bit like an ASBO, certainly in its effect.
What would be the point in a court issuing injunctions which cannot be enforced by sanction?
breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she >>>>>> could be struck off the medical register?
Within reason, professions require practitioners to be of good character. >>>>> Convictions for certain types of offence (not all) will breach that
requirement.
On 20/04/2024 11:15, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2024 01:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well since she has been engaging in meritorious conduct, one would hope
that they have been convened to consider if she should be awarded some
sort of award.
JSO have the same mentality as those who blame the sugar companies for
people ruining their health with sugar. It's convenient to blame
someone else, rather than taking responsibility for the crap we choose
to stuff into ourselves.
That isn't fair. Sugar is a personal choice, air pollution affects other people.
If we simply stopped using oil overnight, our present society could
not function, and we would have mass starvation. In medieval times,
this country could only support a population of around 3 million, and
without power that's roughly the population that could be supported now.
The idea is not to stop oil overnight, but to apply pressure to restrict
oil supply, no new fields, and thus promote the development of
alternatives. It seems sensible to do this. Indeed it is similar to the
idea behind Carbon Credits....
On 2024-04-20, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2024 01:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well since she has been engaging in meritorious conduct, one would hope
that they have been convened to consider if she should be awarded some
sort of award.
JSO have the same mentality as those who blame the sugar companies for
people ruining their health with sugar. It's convenient to blame someone
else, rather than taking responsibility for the crap we choose to stuff
into ourselves.
If we simply stopped using oil overnight
Are you somehow under the impression that that is something that
someone has demanded?
On 20/04/2024 10:25, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned
for 31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on
numerous occasions did have something of a negative effect on her
"performance delivering GP services" during the period of her
imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for
failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for example. >>>
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured whilst
taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
I would not classify that as falling ill.
On 20 Apr 2024 at 13:52:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 07:57 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 11:08:13 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 07:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 17:20:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or >>>>>> not deployed as part of a protest.
You are mistaken. The "offence" was to do something which breached a civil
injunction, which act might otherwise have been completely legal.
A bit like an ASBO (or whatever the current name for that is), in effect. >>>>
For perfectly valid reasons of which we are aware and do not need to
discuss, behaviour which is ostensibly lawful - such as knocking on your >>>> front door at 01:00 - might be the subject of a legal prohibition order. >>>> Breaching such an order, whether it is one operating in general within >>>> an area or applying specifically to the individual is subject to sanction. >>>>
Is this not well-known?
Breaching an ASBO *is* (or at least usually is) a criminal offence. ASBOs are
part of the criminal law, not civil injunctions.
And that is why I used the phrase "a bit like an ASBO".
And it is a bit like an ASBO, certainly in its effect.
What would be the point in a court issuing injunctions which cannot be
enforced by sanction?
In the case of the ASBO it is a criminal sanction. In the case of the Doctor it is a civil sanction. In a legal newsgroup surely legal niceties should not be disregarded purely for rhetorical reasons?
On 20/04/2024 23:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-20, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If we simply stopped using oil overnight
Are you somehow under the impression that that is something that
someone has demanded?
Let's think about the sign she was actually holding up: "No new oil".
Oil fields have a limited lifespan, and oil companies typically work on
a cycle where they have around 10 years production in hand.
So, no new oil means no oil at all in 10 years. Which is practically overnight.
On 20 Apr 2024 at 13:52:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
What would be the point in a court issuing injunctions which cannot be
enforced by sanction?
In the case of the ASBO it is a criminal sanction. In the case of the Doctor >it is a civil sanction. In a legal newsgroup surely legal niceties should not >be disregarded purely for rhetorical reasons?
On 20/04/2024 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 20/04/2024 10:25, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned
for 31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on
numerous occasions did have something of a negative effect on her
"performance delivering GP services" during the period of her
imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for
failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for
example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured whilst
taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
I would not classify that as falling ill.
I think you must have missed where I wrote "for example"?
On 20/04/2024 11:21 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2024 at 13:52:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 07:57 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 11:08:13 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 07:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 17:20:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or >>>>>>> not deployed as part of a protest.
You are mistaken. The "offence" was to do something which breached a civil
injunction, which act might otherwise have been completely legal.
A bit like an ASBO (or whatever the current name for that is), in effect. >>>>>
For perfectly valid reasons of which we are aware and do not need to >>>>> discuss, behaviour which is ostensibly lawful - such as knocking on your >>>>> front door at 01:00 - might be the subject of a legal prohibition order. >>>>> Breaching such an order, whether it is one operating in general within >>>>> an area or applying specifically to the individual is subject to sanction.
Is this not well-known?
Breaching an ASBO *is* (or at least usually is) a criminal offence. ASBOs are
part of the criminal law, not civil injunctions.
And that is why I used the phrase "a bit like an ASBO".
And it is a bit like an ASBO, certainly in its effect.
What would be the point in a court issuing injunctions which cannot be
enforced by sanction?
In the case of the ASBO it is a criminal sanction. In the case of the Doctor >> it is a civil sanction. In a legal newsgroup surely legal niceties should not
be disregarded purely for rhetorical reasons?
They are both legally-created.
Are you claiming that a "civil injunction" is not the slightest bit like
an ASBO?
Really?
On 20 Apr 2024 22:21:40 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2024 at 13:52:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
What would be the point in a court issuing injunctions which cannot be
enforced by sanction?
In the case of the ASBO it is a criminal sanction. In the case of the Doctor >> it is a civil sanction. In a legal newsgroup surely legal niceties should not
be disregarded purely for rhetorical reasons?
The distinction between civil and criminal contempt of court isn't as clear-cut as that. By and large, criminal contempt is committed in the court (eg, by being disruptive) and civil contempt is committed outside it (eg, by breaching an injunction or restriction), but both types of contempt can
apply to both civil and criminal courts, and there are exceptions to both general rules. Both have similar penalties - there's no sense in which criminal contempt is considered more serious than civil contempt - and someone accused of either is entitled to criminal legal aid if eligible. In some cases, the question of whether someone is accused of civil or criminal contempt can come down to matters of procedural convenience rather than depending on the nature of the actions which amount to contempt.
So I think it's perfectly reasonable for the GMC, or any other regulatory body, to treat civil and criminal contempt in the same way. Otherwise, someone guilty of a serious civil contempt would be treated more leniently than someone guilty of a relatively trivial criminal contempt, which would
be contrary to natural justice. Basing the threshold for disciplinary action on the level of the punishment (ie, in this case, imprisonment), rather than the precise nature of the offence leading to it is both more consistent and easier to administer.
Mark
On 21 Apr 2024 at 12:51:21 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2024 11:21 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2024 at 13:52:29 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2024 07:57 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 11:08:13 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 18/04/2024 07:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 17:20:48 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/04/2024 11:04 am, Pancho wrote:A bit like an ASBO (or whatever the current name for that is), in effect.
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for >>>>>>>>> protesting,
Is there an offence of "protesting"?
The offence must be something that would have been illegal whether or >>>>>>>> not deployed as part of a protest.
You are mistaken. The "offence" was to do something which breached a civil
injunction, which act might otherwise have been completely legal. >>>>>>
For perfectly valid reasons of which we are aware and do not need to >>>>>> discuss, behaviour which is ostensibly lawful - such as knocking on your >>>>>> front door at 01:00 - might be the subject of a legal prohibition order. >>>>>> Breaching such an order, whether it is one operating in general within >>>>>> an area or applying specifically to the individual is subject to sanction.
Is this not well-known?
Breaching an ASBO *is* (or at least usually is) a criminal offence. ASBOs are
part of the criminal law, not civil injunctions.
And that is why I used the phrase "a bit like an ASBO".
And it is a bit like an ASBO, certainly in its effect.
What would be the point in a court issuing injunctions which cannot be >>>> enforced by sanction?
In the case of the ASBO it is a criminal sanction. In the case of the Doctor
it is a civil sanction. In a legal newsgroup surely legal niceties should not
be disregarded purely for rhetorical reasons?
They are both legally-created.
Are you claiming that a "civil injunction" is not the slightest bit like
an ASBO?
Really?
So's planning permission legally created. Are you really saying that being refused planning permission is just as culpable as murder?
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:33:19 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 23:31:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:05:10 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that >>>>> "the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the
imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended,
directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a >>>>> Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial
sentence in the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am
not sure, as it did not result from a conviction, that they were
obliged to do so.
How is it *not* a conviction?
She was imprisoned for breach of a civil injunction, which is not
a criminal offence. So it is no sense a "conviction".
According to newspaper reports, she was jailed for contempt of court;
is that not a crime?
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:33:19 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 23:31:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:05:10 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >>>>wrote:
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that >>>>> "the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the
imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended,
directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a >>>>> Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial >>>>sentence in the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am >>>>not sure, as it did not result from a conviction, that they were >>>>obliged to do so.
How is it *not* a conviction?
She was imprisoned for breach of a civil injunction, which is not
a criminal offence. So it is no sense a "conviction".
According to newspaper reports, she was jailed for contempt of court;
is that not a crime?
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:29:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:33:19 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 23:31:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:05:10 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that >>>>>>> "the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the
imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended, >>>>>>> directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a >>>>>>> Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial >>>>>>sentence in the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am >>>>>>not sure, as it did not result from a conviction, that they were >>>>>>obliged to do so.
How is it *not* a conviction?
She was imprisoned for breach of a civil injunction, which is not
a criminal offence. So it is no sense a "conviction".
According to newspaper reports, she was jailed for contempt of court;
is that not a crime?
Civil contempt is not a crime.
We discussed this here in November 2022 in the thread "My day on the
M25".
Sorry, I have no appetite for ploughing through a thread from 18
months ago with over 600 posts in it. Care to summarise how it is not
a crime?
On 2024-04-21, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2024 23:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-20, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If we simply stopped using oil overnight
Are you somehow under the impression that that is something that
someone has demanded?
Let's think about the sign she was actually holding up: "No new oil".
Oil fields have a limited lifespan, and oil companies typically work on
a cycle where they have around 10 years production in hand.
So, no new oil means no oil at all in 10 years. Which is practically
overnight.
I don't believe that for a moment.
On 21/04/2024 11:44, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2024 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 20/04/2024 10:25, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned >>>>>>> for 31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on
numerous occasions did have something of a negative effect on her >>>>>>> "performance delivering GP services" during the period of her
imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for
failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for
example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured
whilst taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
I would not classify that as falling ill.
I think you must have missed where I wrote "for example"?
Not at all, but I took that to mean events that are beyond the control
of the person involved.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 10:40:41 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-22, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:29:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:33:19 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 23:31:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:05:10 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that
"the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section >>>>>>>>> 35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the >>>>>>>>> imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended, >>>>>>>>> directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a >>>>>>>>> Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial >>>>>>>>sentence in the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am >>>>>>>>not sure, as it did not result from a conviction, that they were >>>>>>>>obliged to do so.
How is it *not* a conviction?
She was imprisoned for breach of a civil injunction, which is not
a criminal offence. So it is no sense a "conviction".
According to newspaper reports, she was jailed for contempt of court; >>>>> is that not a crime?
Civil contempt is not a crime.
We discussed this here in November 2022 in the thread "My day on the >>>>M25".
Sorry, I have no appetite for ploughing through a thread from 18
months ago with over 600 posts in it. Care to summarise how it is not
a crime?
Sure. It is not a crime because there is no law that makes it a crime.
It is not a crime in the same way that stepping on the cracks in the >>pavement is not a crime.
Perhaps I've led a sheltered life but I've never known anyone get sent
to jail for stepping on the cracks in the pavement.
On 21/04/2024 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-21, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2024 23:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-20, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If we simply stopped using oil overnight
Are you somehow under the impression that that is something that
someone has demanded?
Let's think about the sign she was actually holding up: "No new oil".
Oil fields have a limited lifespan, and oil companies typically work on
a cycle where they have around 10 years production in hand.
So, no new oil means no oil at all in 10 years. Which is practically
overnight.
I don't believe that for a moment.
Interesting prejudice. :)
Maybe, you'd like to check?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
On 21/04/2024 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-21, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2024 23:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-20, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If we simply stopped using oil overnight
Are you somehow under the impression that that is something that
someone has demanded?
Let's think about the sign she was actually holding up: "No new oil".
Oil fields have a limited lifespan, and oil companies typically work on
a cycle where they have around 10 years production in hand.
So, no new oil means no oil at all in 10 years. Which is practically
overnight.
I don't believe that for a moment.
Interesting prejudice. :)
Maybe, you'd like to check?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
World consumption is currently 82 mb/d
On 21/04/2024 14:31, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/04/2024 11:44, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2024 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 20/04/2024 10:25, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned >>>>>>>> for 31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on
numerous occasions did have something of a negative effect on
her "performance delivering GP services" during the period of
her imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for
failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for
example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured
whilst taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
I would not classify that as falling ill.
I think you must have missed where I wrote "for example"?
Not at all, but I took that to mean events that are beyond the control
of the person involved.
It's a matter of debate whether injuring yourself hang-gliding is beyond
the control of the individual, but I'm sure you'd agree that a doctor
who is unable to see patients because of that would not be hauled before
a tribunal.
Similarly, a GP who wilfully chose to retire would not face a tribunal.
So, I think we have conclusively proved that Simon's point about
'failing to deliver GP services' is a poor one. Why you chose to debate that is beyond me, Colin.
When drafting the order that became the SI back in 2004, I do not
believe that the GMC turned their minds to the fact that one could be >imprisoned for breaching a civil injunction for contempt of court but
rather that they saw imprisonment, even if suspended, as mandating an >appearance before a tribunal. I've spoken with a friend that's a GP
over the weekend, and his thoughts, without referring to the precise
wording of anything, is that all doctors know and understand that a
custodial sentence of any description will land one before an MPTS tribunal.
When I pointed out the precise wording of the Order in force, he
response was: "Well that will be changed the next time they amend it."
In an unusual stance for me to take, I think there is too much splitting
of hairs over the difference between civil and criminal contempt and the >emphasis on a "criminal conviction leading to a custodial sentence" when
it is clear that the "red line" for the GMC is imprisonment and that as
this occurred in this case there must be an MPTS tribunal.
On 20/04/2024 00:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:05:10 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 19/04/2024 11:42, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 19:45, Colin Bignell wrote:
Anybody working for the health services in the UK has to declare >>>>>>> criminal convictions and may be subject to a review of whether that >>>>>>> could affect their fitness to work in the NHS. Could be struck off >>>>>>> makes a much better headline than might get a slapped wrist or might >>>>>>> have no action taken.
Even so, the hearing is over a week long, which in itself is a
punishment. Her defence costs will be considerable,
All of which could have been avoided by not getting a criminal
conviction in the first place.
That's rather begging the question. The point the OP was making is that >>>> there must be a filter mechanism in place, for the GMC to decide which >>>> cases deserve a full tribunal hearing, and it's not clear why oil
protesters have been flagged up for a hearing.
The "filter mechanism", to use your term, is "a conviction resulting in
the imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended". >>>
In the instant case, the doctor self-reported each arrest and the
subsequent imprisonment, as she was required to do.
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that
"the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the
imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended,
directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a
Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial sentence in
the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am not sure, as it did
not result from a conviction, that they were obliged to do so.
For what is, or is not, reasonable of the GMC, I refer you the statement
from the MPTS ahead of the tribunal setting out the details of the
hearing of which, incidentally, I posted a copy in Message-ID: <l8cicrFc729U27@mid.individual.net> in a direct reply to the OP's post
within a couple of hours of it being made.
In case you've forgotten:
"The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 26 April 2022, 4
May 2022 and 14 September 2022, Dr Benn engaged in peaceful protest
within a prohibited buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in breach of
an interim injunction granted on 14 April 2022.
"It is alleged that Dr Benn's actions amounted to a contempt of court
and resulted in a custodial service."
The facts of the tribunal's point of reference have been known and
available since before the tribunal started.
Regards
S.P.
On 20/04/2024 00:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:06:17 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 19/04/2024 11:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
In this particular case, I think she will avoid any significant
sanctions.
But she can't avoid the review itself, since that's *an automatic
consequence
of a conviction*.
Do you have a reference for that? I wouldn't expect a doctor convicted >>>> for speeding to be hauled before a tribunal. But ICBW.
The General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council >>> 2004, Rule 5.
As detailed in a post elsewhere to the thread, for a conviction there is >>> some discretion and a Registrar may refer the matter to Case Examiners
who may do the equivalent of issuing an NFA.
However, the imposition of a custodial sentence, even a suspended one,
is a mandatory referral to the MPTS who must arrange for a tribunal to
consider the matter.
Again, are convictions relevant to the case under discussion?
Please replace the word "conviction" in my paragraph above with the word "arrest" as I shouldn't have used the word conviction.
It is arrests that must be referred to the GMC, all of which are
reviewed by Case Examiners, and custodial sentences that mandate a hearing.
Regards
S.P.
On 18/04/2024 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 20:12:02 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
Why? I was hoping someone would explain why they thought it is a good
idea. I wondered if there was a reason other than providing an obvious >>>> mechanism to increase the power of the state to punish political
dissidents.
As I've just said in a parallel post to Jon Ribbens, both individual
patients of a specific doctor and the wider public in general, must be
able to trust that doctors will abide by the rule of law.
Were that not the case, what happens if the court makes an order
regarding a patient's treatment and a doctor refuses to comply with the
court order because he doesn't agree with it?
Provided that the doctor does not try to prevent the order being complied with
then nothing! A court cannot normally order a particular doctor to carry out a
treatment. Though perhaps they can order that a particular treatment is not >> carried out. At least, their employer may be upset by them not doing their >> work but that is entirely an employment matter, not legal or ethical
obligation. No doctor should be forced to carry out treatment they do not
agree with - we (or at least our newspapers) were quite upset when soviet
psychiatrists were forced to treat political dissidents in the soviet union, >> why do we want that here?
You miss the point.
On 20/04/2024 01:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-19, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 22:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-18, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
The issue, which was made quite clear in my post, is that she has been >>>>> arrested on three separate occasions for breaching a court order which >>>>> led to her being imprisoned for 31 days.
Ok. What's that got to do with anything?
Each arrest required a referral to a Registrar of the GMC.
The imposition of a custodial sentence required a mandatory MPTS Tribunal. >>>
Contrariwise, attending a JSO protest did not require referral to a
Registrar of the GMC.
It is *nothing* to do with attending a JSO protest and *everything* to
do with being arrested multiple times for breaching a court order and
being imprisoned as a consequence.
Ok. I'm glad you've finally googled that are now able to enlighten us :-)
I think you mean, "Thank you for educating me as to the facts of the
matter. I am glad one of us has a clue about these things as that makes
for a far more productive exchange."
And, of course, "You're welcome." :-)
P.S. I have stated from the beginning that the issue was the arrests and imprisonment rather than the protest, so I don't know why you consider
this a change of direction that required the use of Google?
Let's say her former partner had obtained an injunction banning her from >>>>> coming within 200 metres of them and she'd been arrested on three
separate occasions for breaching that order and then imprisoned for 31 >>>>> days as a result.
Would you consider it reasonable for the MPTS to hold a tribunal in
those circumstances and why do you so answer?
I'd need to know more information, but it seems likely that it would
be reasonable, because she would be demonstrating that she couldn't be >>>> trusted around people, which is kind've important for a doctor - unlike >>>> anything the doctor we are actually talking about has actually done.
No further information is required, but thank you for confirming that
you are posting from a position of ignorance.
We are all posting from a position of ignorance.
But some of us are more ignorant than others? :-)
It is the natural state
of humanity.
There are many who will strive to defend the sanctity of ignorance and
then expect others to be impressed with their efforts.
But you didn't ask whether I "thought it was a legal or
contractual requirement", you asked if I "considered it reasonable".
I think you may need to re-evaluate your conclusions.
I'm quite happy with my conclusions, thank you, and am confident no
further evaluation is required nor will it be of any benefit to do so.
And they are considering giving her a medal or other commendation on
this basis?
I do not believe they are considering giving her a medal or other
commendation on this basis, no. Why do you think the tribunal has been
convened?
Well since she has been engaging in meritorious conduct, one would hope
that they have been convened to consider if she should be awarded some
sort of award.
The precis issued in advance of the hearing by the MPTS mentioned
neither "meritorious conduct" nor an "award". Are you sure you're not projecting rather than considering the facts of the matter?
What on earth does any of that have to do with being potentially struck >>>> off the medical register (or suspended, or threatened with future
suspensions or strikings-off, or whatever).
I know you think she was 'fighting for a noble cause', (and I've been
careful not to express an opinion on that either way), but she knew the
consequences of being arrested and the likelihood of being imprisoned
with each subsequent arrest. Furthermore, she knew that imprisonment
would automatically trigger a tribunal.
She can't now turn around and say, "Well this is most unexpected." or
"This is most unfair." She knew the likely consequences of her actions. >>> she went ahead and did it anyway. She must now face the consequences, >>> whatever they may be.
To her credit, she's actually said as much.
Ok. None of that is an answer to my question, but good for you.
You seem to be getting a bit muddled up between her employment
and her GMC registration.
There's no confusion on my part. You now seem to accept that others
were affected by Dr Benn's imprisonment. I consider that progress and
see no need to labour the point further.
Ok, so I assume that you were, in an amnbiguous and convoluted way,
saying that it is incredibly unlikely she will be struck off.
There was nothing ambiguous or convoluted about it. Stating that [x]
could happen 'in the same way' as [y] or [z] could happen, when it is
known that [y] and [z] are incredibly unlikely events is a clear
expression that I consider [x] to be as unlikely as [y] or [z].
It is clear only if it is obvious that the unlikelihood of the event
is the specific thing that you are referring to. You didn't mention that.
I recommend looking up the word "idiom" in your dictionary of choice.
Then consider that the generally accepted answer for the chances of
being struck by a meteorite is one in 840,000,000 with a known recorded instance of precisely one person ever having been struck by a meteorite.
You think that JSO is trying to influence the tribunal, rather than
the public? That seems rather a long shot, especially if it is true
that, as you apparently say, it is extremely unlikely that they would
be considering striking-off regardless.
Influencing the tribunal and the public are not mutually exclusive.
Rather, whipping up the latter can be an indirect means of influencing
the former, as I'm sure you know.
Ah, so when you said that you expected "MPTS tribunal members" to
"give the JSO press release the full consideration it deserves",
that was a "clear expression" of your actual meaning, that you
expect them to give the *public reaction* to the press release the
full consideration *that* deserves. Obviously.
I expect the MPTS tribunal members to ignore the JSO press release
entirely. However, a part of the issue before the tribunal is the
effect Dr Benn's actions had on the public and whether or not this
affected their trust and confidence in the medical profession. Hence
the desire for JSO to ensure there is a public outpouring of praise for
Dr Benn to which you are clearly more than happy to lend your voice.
(Ed: I don't believe MPTS tribunal members read ULM.)
Personally, I find it quite right and proper that a doctor that breachesBecause...?
court orders on numerous occasions and is imprisoned as a result should >>>>>>> have their behaviour formally reviewed by their professional body. >>>>>>
She deliberately breached court orders which may amount to a contempt of >>>>> court. Doctors literally have people's lives in their hands. A
doctor's patients and the wider public at large must be able to trust a >>>>> doctor to abide by the rule of law.
Because...?
I recommend re-reading the above paragraph. The answer you seek is
there if you look more carefully second time around.
I've looked a second and even third time, and it still seems to me that
you're just proclaiming an unsupported opinion.
Let's posit an example to see if I can assist your understanding of the issue.
An acquaintance of mine is a KC who specialises is medical cases, (he
usually appears on behalf of CAFCASS), where there is a dispute between
the doctors and the parents, and / or depending on the competency of the child, the child, as to the best course of action. Typically, the
doctors wish to perform a medical procedure on a child, (or withdraw
medical services in some cases), and the parents / child object. The
matter is taken to court and the court issues an order that the
procedure should / should not be carried out / that the equipment should
be left in place for the time being / should be switched off. Assume a doctor disagrees with the order and places their personal belief ahead
of that of the court and carries out the procedure / withdraws medical support in defiance of the court order.
"Ah, but that isn't what happened here!", I imagine you exclaiming. "Dr
Benn was taking a principled stand for a cause in which she held strong beliefs that was nothing to do with medical treatments."
The decision before the MTPS tribunal is whether or not it makes a difference. Can a doctor choose which orders of the court they obey if
they want to remain a doctor, or must they obey them all regardless of
their personal beliefs on the matter?
I happened to be speaking to a friend that's a GP over the weekend and,
when discussing the case, he described the MTPS' position as "difficult".
I'm sure if you think about it for long enough you might be able to come >>>>>> up with an obscure and deeply-hidden reason why a *lawyer* breaking the >>>>>> *law* is a problem in a way that doesn't apply to people in most other >>>>>> professions.
I respectfully disagree and invite you to read the following "Reasons" >>>>> from the Employment Tribunal that considered the case of Mr Niamke
Doffou v Sainsbury's Supermarket's Limited earlier this year, recently >>>>> published and therefore in the news of late. [^1]
Ok I've read that. What in the name of Samwise Gamgee do you think that >>>> a case involving a person being sacked by their employer for theft from >>>> said employer has even remotely to do with a MPTS tribunal considering >>>> a doctor who is not suspected of any wrongdoing against their employer, >>>> indeed not suspected of any dishonesty at all?
Workers breaking the law, especially in regulated professions, has
consequences beyond those that may be imposed by the legal system. In
Mr Doffou's case, the value of the goods taken, and the possibility that >>> it may have been an inadvertent error meant he faced no criminal
sanctions. But he still lost his job. Your claim was that the
consequences of "a lawyer breaking the law" is vastly different to "most >>> other professions". I provided an example, (and chose the one I did
mainly because it was recently published and therefore was foremost in
my mind), of a lowly shop worker, (i.e. not a "regulated profession")
facing severe consequences for an action he claims was unintentional.
Ok. You've still completely failed to make any link whatsoever between
that case and this one. Everyone knows that if you steal from your
employer then you may be sacked by them, and nobody sensible thinks
that is unreasonable. What does that have to do with doctors being
(potentially) struck off and prevented from ever working as doctors
again for (exemplary) conduct that has absolutely no bearing on their
fitness to be a doctor?
I do not consider that breaking a court order on multiple occasions to
be exemplary behaviour, and neither do the courts, it would seem, as
they felt it necessary to imprison the doctor as a result.
That aside, your claim was that "a *lawyer* breaking the *law* is a
problem in a way that doesn't apply to people in most other professions".
Mr Doffou's case shows that for most workers in most forms of
employment, breaking the law is a problem, more so should it result in a custodial sentence.
Those in the legal field are not a special case. I have friends and acquaintances that work in finance, banking, science and engineering, to
name but a few, and all of then would expect their professional body / regulator to become involved should they serve a term of imprisonment.
Compare and contrast with the doctor in the instant case who knew the
consequences of arrest and imprisonment in advance of her arrest and
subsequent imprisonment.
Ok I've compared them and the contrast is that one is an apple
and the other is not so much an orange as it is a class 2 carbon-fibre
hang-glider.
I fear you are seeing only what you want to see.
Regards
S.P.
On 18/04/2024 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 20:12:02 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect >>>> her performance delivering GP services.
There's no problem whatsoever with her having attended an oil protest.
There is a problem with breaching a court order on numerous occasions
which may amount to a contempt of court which is a serious issue for a
doctor.
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned for 31
days for having breached aforementioned court order on numerous
occasions did have something of a negative effect on her "performance
delivering GP services" during the period of her imprisonment.
*If* the tribunal is taking this position then it is probably misdirecting >> itself.
That isn't the tribunal's position. Your statement was: "I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect her
performance delivering GP services."
I was pointing out that going to an oil protest likely didn't "affect
her performance delivering GP services". However, a 31 day term of imprisonment will have had a significant and profound effect on "her performance delivering GP services", unless you were thinking she held
her surgery in the visiting suite at the prison and her patients came to
see her there. (Pedantically, her term of imprisonment was 46 days but
the sentence imposed by the court was 32 days to take account of the 14
days already spent on remand at that point.)
Importantly, going to an oil protest, despite the subject of the thread
which mirrors claims made by JSO, did not land the doctor in front of an
MPTS tribunal.
Interestingly, being arrested on three separate occasions for
deliberately breaching a court order did not land the doctor in front of
an MPTS tribunal either.
Rather, it was the imposition of a 31 day term of imprisonment that
triggered her appearance before an MPTS tribunal.
But I suppose "Doctor could be struck off for being imprisoned for
repeatedly ignoring court orders" isn't quite so click-baity as a headline.
If the doctor is a GP partner then she and any other partners are
responsible for finding replacement staff. If she was not a partner then the >> employing practice has to find a replacement. The GMC is not the HR
department of the General Practice. Making yourself unavailable for work is >> something done regularly in those countries where slavery is not the norm.
I remind you that your statement was: "I do not understand, in what way, going to an oil protest would affect her performance delivering GP
services." not "I do not understand, in what way, her having being
imprisoned for 31 days would affect her performance delivering GP
services when a suitable replacement had been sourced to provide cover
during her period of incarceration."
This is a legal newsgroup. The devil is (nearly) always in the detail.
[snip text to which you hadn't responded]
Personally, I find it quite right and proper that a doctor thatWhy? I was hoping someone would explain why they thought it is a good
breaches court orders on numerous occasions and is imprisoned as a
result should have their behaviour formally reviewed by their
professional body.
idea. I wondered if there was a reason other than providing an obvious >>>> mechanism to increase the power of the state to punish political
dissidents.
As I've just said in a parallel post to Jon Ribbens, both individual
patients of a specific doctor and the wider public in general, must be
able to trust that doctors will abide by the rule of law.
Were that not the case, what happens if the court makes an order
regarding a patient's treatment and a doctor refuses to comply with the
court order because he doesn't agree with it?
Or what happens if a doctor is repeatedly unable to perform their duties >>> for months at a time because they have been imprisoned? For how long is >>> their employer to be expected to keep the position open? For how many
instances of incarceration should they do this?
The GMC is not an employer organisation. Or at least it is not supposed to be.
These calculations, just as if she were frequently off sick, are ones for her
employer or partners, not the medical regulator.
You've addressed only half of what I wrote.
Did you miss the bit about it being necessary for a doctor to abide by
the rule of law?
Do you think a doctor that repeatedly refuses to obey court orders and
is imprisoned as a result is a matter for the GMC or should they look
they other way?
Regards
S.P.
On 22/04/2024 13:15, GB wrote:
On 21/04/2024 14:31, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/04/2024 11:44, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2024 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 20/04/2024 10:25, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned >>>>>>>>> for 31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on >>>>>>>>> numerous occasions did have something of a negative effect on >>>>>>>>> her "performance delivering GP services" during the period of >>>>>>>>> her imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for >>>>>>>> failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for >>>>>>>> example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured
whilst taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
I would not classify that as falling ill.
I think you must have missed where I wrote "for example"?
Not at all, but I took that to mean events that are beyond the control
of the person involved.
It's a matter of debate whether injuring yourself hang-gliding is beyond
the control of the individual, but I'm sure you'd agree that a doctor
who is unable to see patients because of that would not be hauled before
a tribunal.
Similarly, a GP who wilfully chose to retire would not face a tribunal.
So, I think we have conclusively proved that Simon's point about
'failing to deliver GP services' is a poor one. Why you chose to debate
that is beyond me, Colin.
Probably because I disagree with you about that conclusion.
On 21/04/2024 14:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2024 at 13:36:53 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2024 22:21:40 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
In the case of the ASBO it is a criminal sanction. In the case of the Doctor
it is a civil sanction. In a legal newsgroup surely legal niceties should not
be disregarded purely for rhetorical reasons?
The distinction between civil and criminal contempt of court isn't as
clear-cut as that. By and large, criminal contempt is committed in the court
(eg, by being disruptive) and civil contempt is committed outside it (eg, by
breaching an injunction or restriction), but both types of contempt can
apply to both civil and criminal courts, and there are exceptions to both >>> general rules. Both have similar penalties - there's no sense in which
criminal contempt is considered more serious than civil contempt - and
someone accused of either is entitled to criminal legal aid if eligible. In >>> some cases, the question of whether someone is accused of civil or criminal >>> contempt can come down to matters of procedural convenience rather than
depending on the nature of the actions which amount to contempt.
So I think it's perfectly reasonable for the GMC, or any other regulatory >>> body, to treat civil and criminal contempt in the same way. Otherwise,
someone guilty of a serious civil contempt would be treated more leniently >>> than someone guilty of a relatively trivial criminal contempt, which would >>> be contrary to natural justice. Basing the threshold for disciplinary action
on the level of the punishment (ie, in this case, imprisonment), rather than
the precise nature of the offence leading to it is both more consistent and >>> easier to administer.
I think that is perfectly reasonable too! But someone, who I believe should >> know better, quoted a statute that compels the GMC to hold a hearing in the >> case of a criminal conviction leading to a custodial sentence and claimed it >> applied to this case. I am pointing out that this is untrue. I am not in any >> way claiming that it was unreasonable for the GP to hold a hearing in this >> case.
When drafting the order that became the SI back in 2004, I do not
believe that the GMC turned their minds to the fact that one could be imprisoned for breaching a civil injunction for contempt of court but
rather that they saw imprisonment, even if suspended, as mandating an appearance before a tribunal. I've spoken with a friend that's a GP
over the weekend, and his thoughts, without referring to the precise
wording of anything, is that all doctors know and understand that a
custodial sentence of any description will land one before an MPTS tribunal.
When I pointed out the precise wording of the Order in force, he
response was: "Well that will be changed the next time they amend it."
In an unusual stance for me to take, I think there is too much splitting
of hairs over the difference between civil and criminal contempt and the emphasis on a "criminal conviction leading to a custodial sentence" when
it is clear that the "red line" for the GMC is imprisonment and that as
this occurred in this case there must be an MPTS tribunal.
snipAre we sure that breaching a civil injunction is an "offence" and that the police are entitled to record these punishments? It would not be the first time that the police had exceeded their authority to record infomation on a database.
Recording offences on the PNC is governed by the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000, Regulation 3 of which specifies
"any offence punishable with imprisonment" may be recorded on the PNC
whilst referring to these as "crime recordable offences". The PNC has
three codes for different forms of contempt, which also cover contempt
of court for breaching a civil order, (as in this case), meaning
contempt is a "crime recordable offence" and imprisonment for same is
going to be recorded on the PNC, despite some being convinced the doctor
has committed no crime so how can a "crime recordable offence" be
recorded on the PNC?
snip
On 22 Apr 2024 at 15:33:39 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 22/04/2024 13:15, GB wrote:
On 21/04/2024 14:31, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/04/2024 11:44, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2024 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 20/04/2024 10:25, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned >>>>>>>>>> for 31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on >>>>>>>>>> numerous occasions did have something of a negative effect on >>>>>>>>>> her "performance delivering GP services" during the period of >>>>>>>>>> her imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for >>>>>>>>> failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for >>>>>>>>> example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured
whilst taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
I would not classify that as falling ill.
I think you must have missed where I wrote "for example"?
Not at all, but I took that to mean events that are beyond the control >>>> of the person involved.
It's a matter of debate whether injuring yourself hang-gliding is beyond >>> the control of the individual, but I'm sure you'd agree that a doctor
who is unable to see patients because of that would not be hauled before >>> a tribunal.
Similarly, a GP who wilfully chose to retire would not face a tribunal.
So, I think we have conclusively proved that Simon's point about
'failing to deliver GP services' is a poor one. Why you chose to debate >>> that is beyond me, Colin.
Probably because I disagree with you about that conclusion.
So you feel that a doctor who has retired from medical practice for a reason you don't think appropriate should be forced to go back to work? Does that also apply to doctors who become script writers or MPs? Or just doctors whose politics you disagree with?
On 22/04/2024 16:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2024 at 15:33:39 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 22/04/2024 13:15, GB wrote:
On 21/04/2024 14:31, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/04/2024 11:44, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2024 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 20/04/2024 10:25, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned >>>>>>>>>>> for 31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on >>>>>>>>>>> numerous occasions did have something of a negative effect on >>>>>>>>>>> her "performance delivering GP services" during the period of >>>>>>>>>>> her imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for >>>>>>>>>> failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for >>>>>>>>>> example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured >>>>>>>> whilst taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
I would not classify that as falling ill.
I think you must have missed where I wrote "for example"?
Not at all, but I took that to mean events that are beyond the control >>>>> of the person involved.
It's a matter of debate whether injuring yourself hang-gliding is beyond >>>> the control of the individual, but I'm sure you'd agree that a doctor
who is unable to see patients because of that would not be hauled before >>>> a tribunal.
Similarly, a GP who wilfully chose to retire would not face a tribunal. >>>>
So, I think we have conclusively proved that Simon's point about
'failing to deliver GP services' is a poor one. Why you chose to debate >>>> that is beyond me, Colin.
Probably because I disagree with you about that conclusion.
So you feel that a doctor who has retired from medical practice for a reason >> you don't think appropriate should be forced to go back to work? Does that >> also apply to doctors who become script writers or MPs? Or just doctors whose
politics you disagree with?
I didn't say that. My view is that it is perfectly reasonable that a GP
who fails to provide patient services because they are in prison should
have to be subject to review. All the other reasons put forward for
failing to provide services are simply red herrings, which appear to be
aimed at justifying her actions.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:00:24 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-22, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 10:40:41 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-22, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:29:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:33:19 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 23:31:21 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On 19 Apr 2024 at 23:05:10 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
Once the report of the imprisonment had been received, the rule is that
"the Registrar shall refer an allegation falling within section >>>>>>>>>>> 35C(2)(c) of the Act relating to a conviction resulting in the >>>>>>>>>>> imposition of a custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended, >>>>>>>>>>> directly to the MPTS for them to arrange for it to be considered by a
Medical Practitioners Tribunal."
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial >>>>>>>>>>sentence in the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am >>>>>>>>>>not sure, as it did not result from a conviction, that they were >>>>>>>>>>obliged to do so.
How is it *not* a conviction?
She was imprisoned for breach of a civil injunction, which is not >>>>>>>>a criminal offence. So it is no sense a "conviction".
According to newspaper reports, she was jailed for contempt of court; >>>>>>> is that not a crime?
Civil contempt is not a crime.
We discussed this here in November 2022 in the thread "My day on the >>>>>>M25".
Sorry, I have no appetite for ploughing through a thread from 18
months ago with over 600 posts in it. Care to summarise how it is not >>>>> a crime?
Sure. It is not a crime because there is no law that makes it a crime. >>>>It is not a crime in the same way that stepping on the cracks in the >>>>pavement is not a crime.
Perhaps I've led a sheltered life but I've never known anyone get sent
to jail for stepping on the cracks in the pavement.
Ok. What's your point? I don't know what you want me to tell you.
As has already been mentioned by myself and others, you can go to prison >>for some things which are not criminal offences. See for example
the 'Civil prisoners' section of this web page:
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/adviceguide/unconvicted-unsentenced-and-civil-prisoners/
OK, I see on that site that "Civil Prisoners are treated as convicted
and should be categorised, unless the sentence is very short."
I know that a sentence less than 12 months is considered short but I
don't know if 31 days is considered *very* short. Either way, it would
have been helpful for you or Roger to explain that rather than
rambling about cabbages and cracks in pavements.
On 22/04/2024 15:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2024 at 14:40:43 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 20/04/2024 00:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial sentence in
the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am not sure, as it did
not result from a conviction, that they were obliged to do so.
For what is, or is not, reasonable of the GMC, I refer you the statement >>> from the MPTS ahead of the tribunal setting out the details of the
hearing of which, incidentally, I posted a copy in Message-ID:
<l8cicrFc729U27@mid.individual.net> in a direct reply to the OP's post
within a couple of hours of it being made.
In case you've forgotten:
"The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 26 April 2022, 4
May 2022 and 14 September 2022, Dr Benn engaged in peaceful protest
within a prohibited buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in breach of
an interim injunction granted on 14 April 2022.
"It is alleged that Dr Benn's actions amounted to a contempt of court
and resulted in a custodial service."
The facts of the tribunal's point of reference have been known and
available since before the tribunal started.
Indeed. I was only remarking on the non-relevance of "allegation falling
within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act" which you quoted above. I was not seeking to disagree >> with how the GMC used its discretion, just pointing out that it had some.
I am informed, reliably I consider, by someone that ought to know far
better than you or I, that there is no discretion, regardless of how the underlying legislation may be framed.
The GMC's operational policy is that the imposition of a period of imprisonment, even should it be suspended, will always result in an MPTS tribunal and everybody over whom the GMC has oversight, including Doctor Benn, is eminently aware of this fact.
Regards
S.P.
On 22 Apr 2024 at 19:37:58 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 22/04/2024 16:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2024 at 15:33:39 BST, "Colin Bignell" <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:
On 22/04/2024 13:15, GB wrote:
On 21/04/2024 14:31, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 21/04/2024 11:44, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2024 21:13, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 20/04/2024 10:25, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2024 18:27, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 19/04/2024 14:46, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2024 20:12, Simon Parker wrote:
Similarly, there can be no doubt that her having been imprisoned >>>>>>>>>>>> for 31 days for having breached aforementioned court order on >>>>>>>>>>>> numerous occasions did have something of a negative effect on >>>>>>>>>>>> her "performance delivering GP services" during the period of >>>>>>>>>>>> her imprisonment.
That's a poor point, Simon, as she wouldn't face a tribunal for >>>>>>>>>>> failing to deliver GP services because she had become ill, for >>>>>>>>>>> example.
Falling ill is not avoidable. Breaching an injunction is.
That's also a poor point. The doctor might have become injured >>>>>>>>> whilst taking part in some highly dangerous pastime.
I would not classify that as falling ill.
I think you must have missed where I wrote "for example"?
Not at all, but I took that to mean events that are beyond the control >>>>>> of the person involved.
It's a matter of debate whether injuring yourself hang-gliding is beyond >>>>> the control of the individual, but I'm sure you'd agree that a doctor >>>>> who is unable to see patients because of that would not be hauled before >>>>> a tribunal.
Similarly, a GP who wilfully chose to retire would not face a tribunal. >>>>>
So, I think we have conclusively proved that Simon's point about
'failing to deliver GP services' is a poor one. Why you chose to debate >>>>> that is beyond me, Colin.
Probably because I disagree with you about that conclusion.
So you feel that a doctor who has retired from medical practice for a reason
you don't think appropriate should be forced to go back to work? Does that >>> also apply to doctors who become script writers or MPs? Or just doctors whose
politics you disagree with?
I didn't say that. My view is that it is perfectly reasonable that a GP
who fails to provide patient services because they are in prison should
have to be subject to review. All the other reasons put forward for
failing to provide services are simply red herrings, which appear to be
aimed at justifying her actions.
The reason the GP in question "failed to provide GP services" while in prison is that she had not practiced medicine for two years in order to concentrate on camapaigning. Are you saying she should have been punished for not giving herself the option to suddenly apply for another job while she was in prison?
Or what?
I didn't say that. My view is that it is perfectly reasonable that a GP
who fails to provide patient services because they are in prison should
have to be subject to review. All the other reasons put forward for
failing to provide services are simply red herrings, which appear to be
aimed at justifying her actions.
On 22/04/2024 13:10, GB wrote:
On 21/04/2024 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-21, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2024 23:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-20, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If we simply stopped using oil overnight
Are you somehow under the impression that that is something that
someone has demanded?
Let's think about the sign she was actually holding up: "No new oil".
Oil fields have a limited lifespan, and oil companies typically work on >>>> a cycle where they have around 10 years production in hand.
So, no new oil means no oil at all in 10 years. Which is practically
overnight.
I don't believe that for a moment.
Interesting prejudice. :)
Maybe, you'd like to check?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
World consumption is currently 82 mb/d
However, it should be noted that those figures are proved reserves + cumulative production. Proved reserves are those at P90, i.e. there is a
90% probability that that amount, or more, exists in a field. If you use
P50, or proved + probable reserves, there is an awful lot more oil
around than at P90.
On 22/04/2024 16:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2024 at 14:50:44 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2024 at 20:12:02 BST, "Simon Parker"
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:11, Pancho wrote:
Why? I was hoping someone would explain why they thought it is a good >>>>>> idea. I wondered if there was a reason other than providing an
obvious
mechanism to increase the power of the state to punish political
dissidents.
As I've just said in a parallel post to Jon Ribbens, both individual >>>>> patients of a specific doctor and the wider public in general, must be >>>>> able to trust that doctors will abide by the rule of law.
Were that not the case, what happens if the court makes an order
regarding a patient's treatment and a doctor refuses to comply with
the
court order because he doesn't agree with it?
Provided that the doctor does not try to prevent the order being
complied with
then nothing! A court cannot normally order a particular doctor to
carry out a
treatment. Though perhaps they can order that a particular treatment
is not
carried out. At least, their employer may be upset by them not doing
their
work but that is entirely an employment matter, not legal or ethical
obligation. No doctor should be forced to carry out treatment they
do not
agree with - we (or at least our newspapers) were quite upset when
soviet
psychiatrists were forced to treat political dissidents in the
soviet union,
why do we want that here?
You miss the point.
*I* miss the point?
Yes.
If you intended to refer to a doctor being forbidden to
carry out a treatment by a court then you should have done so. But you
didn't.
The doctor ignored a court order prohibiting protest within an exclusion
zone and protested anyway on numerous occasions because she disagreed
with the court order.
A parallel in the medical world would be a doctor ignoring a court order prohibiting a certain procedure being performed and the doctor
performing it anyway because they disagreed with the court order.
If you need that spelling out, that I recommend skipping past my posts
as I expect certain fundamental issues to be taken as read without
needing to be stated explicitly.
On 22/04/2024 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
The reason the GP in question "failed to provide GP services" while
in prison is that she had not practiced medicine for two years in
order to concentrate on camapaigning. Are you saying she should have
been punished for not giving herself the option to suddenly apply for
another job while she was in prison?
Or what?
So, she denied her patients treatment for two years to follow an
obsession? That is even worse.
On 22/04/2024 19:37, Colin Bignell wrote:
I didn't say that. My view is that it is perfectly reasonable that a
GP who fails to provide patient services because they are in prison
should have to be subject to review. All the other reasons put forward
for failing to provide services are simply red herrings, which appear
to be aimed at justifying her actions.
It's called fitness to practise, but that's a bit of a misnomer. In this case, she's accused of bringing the profession into disrepute and
reducing public trust in the profession.
On 22/04/2024 14:42, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 22/04/2024 13:10, GB wrote:
On 21/04/2024 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-21, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2024 23:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-20, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If we simply stopped using oil overnight
Are you somehow under the impression that that is something that
someone has demanded?
Let's think about the sign she was actually holding up: "No new oil". >>>>> Oil fields have a limited lifespan, and oil companies typically
work on
a cycle where they have around 10 years production in hand.
So, no new oil means no oil at all in 10 years. Which is practically >>>>> overnight.
I don't believe that for a moment.
Interesting prejudice. :)
Maybe, you'd like to check?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields
World consumption is currently 82 mb/d
However, it should be noted that those figures are proved reserves +
cumulative production. Proved reserves are those at P90, i.e. there is
a 90% probability that that amount, or more, exists in a field. If you
use P50, or proved + probable reserves, there is an awful lot more oil
around than at P90.
I suspect that we may have different ideas about what 'no new oil'
means. Indeed, the placard probably needed a lengthy footnote to explain.
Prospecting is expensive. The world is aiming to reduce its dependence
on oil over the next 10-20 years, so oil companies are not going to
spend massive amounts on proving new reserves unless they are expected
to be needed in the fairly short term.
In addition, we are in the ridiculous position where the West is not importing Russian oil. Instead, that oil is sent to India and China,
where it is processed and re-exported to the West, having travelled a
far longer distance than it would have before the Ukraine war.
If we really do want to do without Russian oil, we most definitely do
need a lot of 'new oil'.
I agree that climate change is a very important issue. I just disagree
with the tactics being used.
On 2024-04-23, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 22/04/2024 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
The reason the GP in question "failed to provide GP services" while
in prison is that she had not practiced medicine for two years in
order to concentrate on camapaigning. Are you saying she should have
been punished for not giving herself the option to suddenly apply for
another job while she was in prison?
Or what?
So, she denied her patients treatment for two years to follow an
obsession? That is even worse.
So you think that anyone capable of practicing medicine must be forced
to do so full time all day every day until they drop down dead?
On 23/04/2024 15:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-23, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 22/04/2024 20:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
The reason the GP in question "failed to provide GP services" while
in prison is that she had not practiced medicine for two years in
order to concentrate on camapaigning. Are you saying she should have
been punished for not giving herself the option to suddenly apply for
another job while she was in prison?
Or what?
So, she denied her patients treatment for two years to follow an
obsession? That is even worse.
So you think that anyone capable of practicing medicine must be forced
to do so full time all day every day until they drop down dead?
I haven't said that. However, I do think that a doctor who puts a desire
to take part in disruptive protests ahead of their duty of care to
patients does call into question their fitness to continue to practice.
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
It does, however, serve as a cautionary warning to any other doctors that might be
thinking of repeatedly breaching court orders and failing to answer bail whilst off
protesting.
On 23/04/2024 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2024 at 11:04:24 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 22/04/2024 15:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2024 at 14:40:43 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:I am informed, reliably I consider, by someone that ought to know far
On 20/04/2024 00:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
It is perhaps reasonable of the GMC to have treated this custodial sentence in
the same way as one resulting from a conviction, but I am not sure, as it did
not result from a conviction, that they were obliged to do so.
For what is, or is not, reasonable of the GMC, I refer you the statement >>>>> from the MPTS ahead of the tribunal setting out the details of the
hearing of which, incidentally, I posted a copy in Message-ID:
<l8cicrFc729U27@mid.individual.net> in a direct reply to the OP's post >>>>> within a couple of hours of it being made.
In case you've forgotten:
"The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 26 April 2022, 4 >>>>> May 2022 and 14 September 2022, Dr Benn engaged in peaceful protest
within a prohibited buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in breach of >>>>> an interim injunction granted on 14 April 2022.
"It is alleged that Dr Benn's actions amounted to a contempt of court >>>>> and resulted in a custodial service."
The facts of the tribunal's point of reference have been known and
available since before the tribunal started.
Indeed. I was only remarking on the non-relevance of "allegation falling >>>> within section
35C(2)(c) of the Act" which you quoted above. I was not seeking to disagree
with how the GMC used its discretion, just pointing out that it had some. >>>
better than you or I, that there is no discretion, regardless of how the >>> underlying legislation may be framed.
The GMC's operational policy is that the imposition of a period of
imprisonment, even should it be suspended, will always result in an MPTS >>> tribunal and everybody over whom the GMC has oversight, including Doctor >>> Benn, is eminently aware of this fact.
You are playing with words. The GMC has drawn up that operational policy at >> its own discretion, not by law.
Doctor Benn was required to self-report her arrests and imprisonment to
the GMC. These reports will have been looked at by a registrar to
determine the next step.
Given that, following the outcome of Dr Benn's tribunal, the GMC has
formally confirmed that "if a doctor receives a custodial sentence
following civil proceedings" the response of the GMC will be "similar to
our approach to a criminal conviction" and, as has been quoted earlier,
their "approach to a criminal conviction" leading to imprisonment is a mandatory tribunal hearing, perhaps you could outline precisely what
options were available to the registrar reviewing the report of Dr
Benn's imprisonment and how much discretion they had over what their
next step was going to be?
Bearing in mind that we now know that Dr Benn had previously been issued warnings as to her conduct following the prior arrests.
Doctor Benn knew she was likely to be imprisoned were she to be arrested
for breaching the court order for a third time. She knew that she would
need to report that arrest and imprisonment to the GMC. And, she knew
that reporting a period of imprisonment, even the imposition of a
suspended sentence, would automatically trigger an MPTS tribunal.
This is not playing with words. It matters not whether the automatic
process is one underpinned by legislation of the policies and procedures
of the GMC.
Imprisonment = Tribunal.
Regards
S.P.
On 23/04/2024 23:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-18, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv20p4e1zy5o>
I don't understand this. I accept that she was prosecuted for
protesting, breaching an interim injunction, etc. What I don't
understand is what this has to with her ability to act as a GP. Why she
could be struck off the medical register?
I guess lightning strikes are more probable than anticipated;
Dr Benn has been suspended for 5 months. And also the hearing
wasn't just a technicality required by the rules, they actively
advocated against her.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pygw71w3go
She hasn't been struck off, so no lightning strikes at this point.
It transpires she had previously been warned by the MPTS about her
conduct following her arrests.
Additionally, she failed to answer her bail on 4th May 2022 and instead
went to the protest taking place that day and was held on remand for
eight days for this.
She clearly has no regard for the rule of law and has thus been suspended.
But as she hasn't held a license to practise since 30 August 2022 her suspension makes no practical difference to her.
It does, however, serve as a cautionary warning to any other doctors
that might be thinking of repeatedly breaching court orders and failing
to answer bail whilst off protesting.
Regards
S.P.
On 23/04/2024 13:41, Pancho wrote:
On 23/04/2024 11:08, Simon Parker wrote:
On 22/04/2024 16:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
So what?If you intended to refer to a doctor being forbidden to
carry out a treatment by a court then you should have done so. But
you didn't.
The doctor ignored a court order prohibiting protest within an
exclusion zone and protested anyway on numerous occasions because she
disagreed with the court order.
To quote the GMC, "patients and the public rightly have a high degree of trust in doctors and that trust can be eroded if doctors repeatedly fail
to comply with the law." (which pretty much mirrors what I've been
saying throughout this thread was likely to be their stance, in advance
of them formerly confirming it).
A parallel in the medical world would be a doctor ignoring a courtParallel? What does that mean?
order prohibiting a certain procedure being performed and the doctor
performing it anyway because they disagreed with the court order.
Similar or analogous to another.
If a doctor breaks medical rules, it is a medical matter. If a doctor
breaks the law in the course of a political protest, it is a legal
matter. There is no particular reason to suppose civil disobedience
implies a disregard for medical rules.
Unfortunately for you, the GMC disagrees with you. Going forward,
doctors must therefore choose whether to behave according to the
statement issued by the GMC following the outcome of Dr Benn's tribunal hearing, or to follow the claim you've made above.
I wonder which way the majority of them will go?
Similarly, if a doctor repeatedly commits traffic offences, it is
entirely right and proper they are punished, but there is no
particular reason to see why it stops them practising medicine.
Your 'similarly' is misplaced. The GMC has stated quite unequivocally
that "patients and the public rightly have a high degree of trust in
doctors and that trust can be eroded if doctors repeatedly fail to
comply with the law."
Additionally, the MPTS tribunal "concluded that by consistently
breaching a court order Dr Benn’s actions amounted to misconduct".
They are the facts of the matter. You may disagree with them as
strongly as you like, but as the GMC has oversight of the professional standards for doctors, your thoughts on the matter are of no consequence.
I have to assume that you've never worked in a regulated profession
where the body overseeing the profession has not only the right but an obligation to ensure that those working in the profession abide a set of standards that are higher than those for ordinary members of the public.
So far, your arguments seem to based on at least two points I don't
understand.
Firstly, some type of presumption she should have been providing
medical services, whilst in jail. That it was professional misconduct
not to do so. This, despite the fact she was under no obligation to
provide these services.
No, my positions has consistently been that it could be considered professional misconduct to breach a court order on multiple occasions, especially when the breaches reach the point where one is imprisoned as
a result. It now transpires that the GMC have confirmed that, at least
in the case of Doctor Benn, they did consider it professional misconduct.
As at least two other doctors are facing tribunals for behaviour similar
to Dr Benn, they now know what to expect, as do any doctors thinking of deliberately breaching civil court orders in the future.
Secondly, you keep repeating that the MPTS were obliged to investigate
her imprisonment. My point wasn't about the MPTS investigating, it was
about them finding her guilty of professional misconduct.
Doctor Benn was found guilty of misconduct on Friday with her sanctions
for misconduct being announced on Tuesday (by the GMC - at the time of writing the MPTS web-site still shows the hearing as ongoing).
Therefore, it is my sad duty to inform you that you are flogging a dead horse.
On 24/04/2024 12:38, Simon Parker wrote:
On 23/04/2024 13:41, Pancho wrote:
On 23/04/2024 11:08, Simon Parker wrote:
On 22/04/2024 16:20, Roger Hayter wrote:So what?
If you intended to refer to a doctor being forbidden to
carry out a treatment by a court then you should have done so. But
you didn't.
The doctor ignored a court order prohibiting protest within an
exclusion zone and protested anyway on numerous occasions because she
disagreed with the court order.
To quote the GMC, "patients and the public rightly have a high degree of
trust in doctors and that trust can be eroded if doctors repeatedly fail
to comply with the law." (which pretty much mirrors what I've been
saying throughout this thread was likely to be their stance, in advance
of them formerly confirming it).
You can quote the GMC, but we have no particular reason to believe or
respect their statement. There is very little evidence to suggest that
widely supported altruistic civil disobedience by doctors does erode
public trust. We have no reason to believe the public respect or trust
the GMC. No reason to believe the public regard the GMS as anything
other than the political apparatchiks they appear to be. I've already directed people to Trustpilot once in this thread.
On 24/04/2024 12:38, Simon Parker wrote:
On 23/04/2024 13:41, Pancho wrote:
On 23/04/2024 11:08, Simon Parker wrote:
On 22/04/2024 16:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
So what?If you intended to refer to a doctor being forbidden to
carry out a treatment by a court then you should have done so. But
you didn't.
The doctor ignored a court order prohibiting protest within an
exclusion zone and protested anyway on numerous occasions because
she disagreed with the court order.
To quote the GMC, "patients and the public rightly have a high degree
of trust in doctors and that trust can be eroded if doctors repeatedly
fail to comply with the law." (which pretty much mirrors what I've
been saying throughout this thread was likely to be their stance, in
advance of them formerly confirming it).
You can quote the GMC, but we have no particular reason to believe or
respect their statement. There is very little evidence to suggest that
widely supported altruistic civil disobedience by doctors does erode
public trust. We have no reason to believe the public respect or trust
the GMC. No reason to believe the public regard the GMS as anything
other than the political apparatchiks they appear to be. I've already directed people to Trustpilot once in this thread.
A parallel in the medical world would be a doctor ignoring a courtParallel? What does that mean?
order prohibiting a certain procedure being performed and the doctor
performing it anyway because they disagreed with the court order.
Similar or analogous to another.
But it really wasn't. One is about abstract politics, the other is about technical issues relating to how well someone performs their job. These
are generally recognised as very, very distinct things.
If a doctor breaks medical rules, it is a medical matter. If a doctor
breaks the law in the course of a political protest, it is a legal
matter. There is no particular reason to suppose civil disobedience
implies a disregard for medical rules.
Unfortunately for you, the GMC disagrees with you. Going forward,
doctors must therefore choose whether to behave according to the
statement issued by the GMC following the outcome of Dr Benn's
tribunal hearing, or to follow the claim you've made above.
It is unfortunate for us all that we have such poor political
leadership. Poor with respect to environmental policy, energy policy and public health. It is hard to know how to influence it for the better. I believe one way is to defend civil disobedience.
I wonder which way the majority of them will go?
Similarly, if a doctor repeatedly commits traffic offences, it is
entirely right and proper they are punished, but there is no
particular reason to see why it stops them practising medicine.
Your 'similarly' is misplaced. The GMC has stated quite unequivocally
that "patients and the public rightly have a high degree of trust in
doctors and that trust can be eroded if doctors repeatedly fail to
comply with the law."
Yes, you keep saying that, but we have no reason to respect it, to
believe it is true. As opposed to the self-serving nonsense politicians regularly spout in order to justify their own agenda.
Additionally, the MPTS tribunal "concluded that by consistently
breaching a court order Dr Benn’s actions amounted to misconduct".
They are the facts of the matter. You may disagree with them as
strongly as you like, but as the GMC has oversight of the professional
standards for doctors, your thoughts on the matter are of no consequence.
My thoughts are of little consequence, but in a democracy, lots of
little consequences can add up to something more.
I have to assume that you've never worked in a regulated profession
where the body overseeing the profession has not only the right but an
obligation to ensure that those working in the profession abide a set
of standards that are higher than those for ordinary members of the
public.
Making an incorrect assumption on the basis of little evidence, ignoring
the evidence you have been presented, is not sensible.
[snip]
So far, your arguments seem to based on at least two points I don't
understand.
Firstly, some type of presumption she should have been providing
medical services, whilst in jail. That it was professional misconduct
not to do so. This, despite the fact she was under no obligation to
provide these services.
No, my positions has consistently been that it could be considered
professional misconduct to breach a court order on multiple occasions,
especially when the breaches reach the point where one is imprisoned
as a result. It now transpires that the GMC have confirmed that, at
least in the case of Doctor Benn, they did consider it professional
misconduct.
We know it was judged to be professional misconduct. We haven't been
given good reasons why.
As at least two other doctors are facing tribunals for behaviour
similar to Dr Benn, they now know what to expect, as do any doctors
thinking of deliberately breaching civil court orders in the future.
Secondly, you keep repeating that the MPTS were obliged to
investigate her imprisonment. My point wasn't about the MPTS
investigating, it was about them finding her guilty of professional
misconduct.
Doctor Benn was found guilty of misconduct on Friday with her
sanctions for misconduct being announced on Tuesday (by the GMC - at
the time of writing the MPTS web-site still shows the hearing as
ongoing).
Yes, I have known that she had been found guilty from the start of this thread. Discussing the obligation to investigate was one of many
irrelevances introduced to muddy the water.
Therefore, it is my sad duty to inform you that you are flogging a
dead horse.
My goal is not to defend Dr Benn, but to expose the political/legal
system for what it is. It is hard to tell if I have succeeded or failed.
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr Benn.
One less doctor in a time of shortage.
This is often the case, the
political priority of defending the powerful does not care if the common
man bears the cost. They do not care that medical capability is
subverted to support unrelated legal control. The legal system has the
tools to punish civil disobedience, it is just that they are reluctant
to use them because the public disapproves. They don't want to create martyrs.
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr Benn. One less
doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time of doctor shortage.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr Benn. One less
doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point,
that what stopped Harold Shipman in
his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his victims who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or suspended, by the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as many as
150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached
Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result, quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
The underlying point wasn't a comparison of the odiousness of the offence. It was a
response to the notion that being in a "shortage" profession should somehow exempt
people from punishment for antisocial behaviour.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients although >> there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as many as
150, or more.
On 25/04/2024 07:50 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr
Benn. One less
doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time
of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point,
Er... not really.
I wasn't being 100% serious (as you may have guessed).
The underlying point wasn't a comparison of the odiousness of the
offence. It was a response to the notion that being in a "shortage" profession should somehow exempt people from punishment for antisocial behaviour.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr
Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time of
doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold Shipman in
his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his victims
who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or suspended, by
the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients
although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as many
as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached
Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result, quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
bb
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr
Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time of
doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold Shipman in
his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his victims
who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or suspended, by
the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients
although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as many
as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached
Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result, quite
possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the authorities
have to guess as to whether the killer is dead, incarcerated or moved
on ...
On 26/04/2024 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2024 07:50 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr
Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time
of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point,
Er... not really.
I wasn't being 100% serious (as you may have guessed).
The underlying point wasn't a comparison of the odiousness of the
offence. It was a response to the notion that being in a "shortage"
profession should somehow exempt people from punishment for antisocial
behaviour.
My previous GP surgery dabbled in serial killing, but they kept murder
in the family rather than with patients. FWIW, that wasn't why I
switched practice.
My general point was that we should separate our concerns. The justice
system should deal with the general concern of antisocial behaviour, the health service should restrict itself to concerns that affect health care...
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr
Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time of
doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold Shipman in
his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his victims
who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or suspended, by
the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients
although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as many
as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached
Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result, quite
possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the authorities
have to guess as to whether the killer is dead, incarcerated or moved
on ...
However, if they go on deliberately to breach court orders and are
imprisoned as a result, they do so knowing that this will land them
before a MPTS tribunal where we now know a suspension is likely.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9081rF4lf2U1@mid.individual.net...
The underlying point wasn't a comparison of the odiousness of the offence. It was a
response to the notion that being in a "shortage" profession should somehow exempt
people from punishment for antisocial behaviour.
That's all very fine were it not for the fact that Dr Benn "was" indeed punished.
Despite being in a "shortage" profession, as you put it, she was imprisoned for 31 days.*
he point at issue is whether having already been punished for their antisocial
behaviour, people in "shortage professions" should "in addition" be suspended from
practising those professions for what are essentially "token" periods.
Which don't actually achieve anything except disrupt established routines
and in this instance further inconvenience patients. for whose sole benefit the whole system supposedly exists
A cynic might suggest that the primary function of many regulatory bodies administrators etc. appears to be to justify their own existence, roles, and salaries by seeming overzealousness; rather than furthering the objectives towards which they were supposedly set up.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients although
there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as many as
150, or more.
This should of course have read as many as 250 victims or more
The Shipman Enquiry of 2002 concluded he had murdered at least 218 victims with
the Tribunal Head HH Janet Smith admitting the possibility of many more
On 26/04/2024 09:49 am, billy bookcase wrote:
{T] he point at issue is whether having already been punished for their antisocial
behaviour, people in "shortage professions" should "in addition" be suspended from
practising those professions for what are essentially "token" periods.
Which don't actually achieve anything except disrupt established routines
and in this instance further inconvenience patients. for whose sole benefit >> the whole system supposedly exists
You appear to be in danger of arguing that (say) a ver', ver' drunken doctor caught
driving a Land Rover at 55mph at 17:30 on a weekday in Charing Cross Road should not
get the short prison sentence which might well be imposed for a pure drink-drive
offence (no collisions, no injuries, no fatalities).
On 26/04/2024 11:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr
Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time
of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold Shipman
in his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his
victims who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or
suspended, by the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients
although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as many
as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached
Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result,
quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the
authorities have to guess as to whether the killer is dead,
incarcerated or moved on ...
...or has been sentenced to six months for TWOCing.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l91sssFc7eqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 26/04/2024 09:49 am, billy bookcase wrote:
snippage
{T] he point at issue is whether having already been punished for their antisocial
behaviour, people in "shortage professions" should "in addition" be suspended from
practising those professions for what are essentially "token" periods.
Which don't actually achieve anything except disrupt established routines >>> and in this instance further inconvenience patients. for whose sole benefit >>> the whole system supposedly exists
You appear to be in danger of arguing that (say) a ver', ver' drunken doctor caught
driving a Land Rover at 55mph at 17:30 on a weekday in Charing Cross Road should not
get the short prison sentence which might well be imposed for a pure drink-drive
offence (no collisions, no injuries, no fatalities).
You appear to be in danger of completely overlooking the especial emphasis I placed on the phrase "in addition" in the above quoted passage; and somehow thereby inferred that both myself and quite possibly other posters
were in any way referring to the "Criminal Justice System". When in fact
the whole emphasis, right from the start has been on the regulatory
regime and the imposition of "additional sanctions"; in this case by
the MTPS of the GMC
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:45:34 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2024 11:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr >>>>>> Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time
of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold Shipman
in his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his
victims who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or
suspended, by the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients
although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as many >>>> as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached
Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result,
quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the
authorities have to guess as to whether the killer is dead,
incarcerated or moved on ...
...or has been sentenced to six months for TWOCing.
An interesting intersection of crimes :)
On 27/04/2024 09:26 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:45:34 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2024 11:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr >>>>>>> Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time >>>>>> of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold Shipman >>>>> in his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his
victims who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or
suspended, by the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients
although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as
many as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached
Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result,
quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the
authorities have to guess as to whether the killer is dead,
incarcerated or moved on ...
...or has been sentenced to six months for TWOCing.
An interesting intersection of crimes :)
It happens.
An arrest for something minor (not that TWOCing is trivial) leads to detection of other, more serious crimes.
IIRC, Peter Sutcliffe was initially apprehended only for kerb-crawling.
On 25/04/2024 07:28, Pancho wrote:
On 24/04/2024 12:38, Simon Parker wrote:
On 23/04/2024 13:41, Pancho wrote:
So what?
To quote the GMC, "patients and the public rightly have a high degree
of trust in doctors and that trust can be eroded if doctors
repeatedly fail to comply with the law." (which pretty much mirrors
what I've been saying throughout this thread was likely to be their
stance, in advance of them formerly confirming it).
You can quote the GMC, but we have no particular reason to believe or
respect their statement.
Who is this "we" on whose behalf you are speaking and when and by what process were you elected as their spokesperson?
We know it was judged to be professional misconduct. We haven't been
given good reasons why.
I assume you've read all 44 pages of the MPTS determination of facts
before making that statement? [^1]
Because it would not be "sensible" to have made the statement above
without having first read it.
Yes, I have known that she had been found guilty from the start ofSecondly, you keep repeating that the MPTS were obliged to
investigate her imprisonment. My point wasn't about the MPTS
investigating, it was about them finding her guilty of professional
misconduct.
Doctor Benn was found guilty of misconduct on Friday with her
sanctions for misconduct being announced on Tuesday (by the GMC - at
the time of writing the MPTS web-site still shows the hearing as
ongoing).
this thread. Discussing the obligation to investigate was one of many
irrelevances introduced to muddy the water.
The tribunal started sitting on the 15 April. JSO issued their press release the same day. It hit mainstream media shortly thereafter and
this thread started on 18 April, whilst the tribunal was still sitting
and had not issued an outcome.
If you knew on the 18th, when the thread started, that she had been
found guilty (rather than strongly suspected that she might be), I can
but assume you are a time traveller from the future.
May I therefore trouble you to e-mail me this week's lottery numbers
please?
Dr Benn gave up being a GP so she could protest. If anyone is
responsible for their being one less doctor in the system "in a time of shortage" it is JSO as Dr Benn is out protesting rather than seeing patients. (Which I consider her right, for the avoidance of doubt.) You seem to think that the suspension will have any effect on the number of
GPs working? Dr Benn wasn't working as a GP before the suspension,
won't be working as a GP during the suspension and is unlikely to work
as a GP following the suspension, (the latter point made clear in the
MPTS Tribunal findings, for anyone that's bothered to read them). Or weren't you aware of this and were merely intent on parroting your views without reference to the facts of the case in hand?
You appear to be in danger of completely overlooking the especialFair enough.
emphasis I
placed on the phrase "in addition" in the above quoted passage; and
somehow
thereby inferred that both myself and quite possibly other posters
were in any way referring to the "Criminal Justice System". When in fact
the whole emphasis, right from the start has been on the regulatory
regime and the imposition of "additional sanctions"; in this case by
the MTPS of the GMC
But there HAD been some commentary (over a few recent posts) to the
effect that doctors should not be professionally sanctioned because of a shortage of medical personnel.
On that basis, if it were sound, one could argue that even the normal criminal sanctions should be waived.
The Morning Star published the verdict on 18th.
<https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/doctor-found-guilty-professional-misconduct-after-taking-part-climate-protest>
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:09:07 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2024 09:26 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:45:34 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2024 11:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr >>>>>>>> Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time >>>>>>> of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold Shipman >>>>>> in his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his
victims who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or
suspended, by the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients >>>>>> although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as
many as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached >>>>>> Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result,
quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the
authorities have to guess as to whether the killer is dead,
incarcerated or moved on ...
...or has been sentenced to six months for TWOCing.
An interesting intersection of crimes :)
It happens.
An arrest for something minor (not that TWOCing is trivial) leads to
detection of other, more serious crimes.
IIRC, Peter Sutcliffe was initially apprehended only for kerb-crawling.
Which time ? He was arrested years before he went on to commit more
murders.
He *almost* went on to commit more again if it hadn't been for the spidey senses of the policeman who arrested him going back to the scene of the arrest and discovering the murder kit.
On 27/04/2024 14:11, JNugent wrote:
You appear to be in danger of completely overlooking the especial
emphasis I
placed on the phrase "in addition" in the above quoted passage; and
somehow
thereby inferred that both myself and quite possibly other posters
were in any way referring to the "Criminal Justice System". When in fact >>> the whole emphasis, right from the start has been on the regulatory
regime and the imposition of "additional sanctions"; in this case by
the MTPS of the GMC
Fair enough.
But there HAD been some commentary (over a few recent posts) to the
effect that doctors should not be professionally sanctioned because of
a shortage of medical personnel.
I made the point that there was a public cost to sanctioning the doctor.
It is always sensible to consider costs when taking actions.
On that basis, if it were sound, one could argue that even the normal
criminal sanctions should be waived.
It is common for criminal sanctions to be waived due to cost. Motorists
claim hardship to avoid motoring bans. Women avoid jail because they
have to look after children. Men avoid jail because they have a family
to support. In general people are not sent to jail due to overcrowding
or general cost of their imprisonment. This is what happens in the real world.
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:09:07 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2024 09:26 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:45:34 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2024 11:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than Dr >>>>>>>> Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a time >>>>>>> of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold Shipman >>>>>> in his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one of his
victims who reported him to the police. Not being struck off, or
suspended, by the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his patients >>>>>> although there are suggestions his victims might have numbered as
many as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular breached >>>>>> Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a result,
quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down.
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the
authorities have to guess as to whether the killer is dead,
incarcerated or moved on ...
...or has been sentenced to six months for TWOCing.
An interesting intersection of crimes :)
It happens.
An arrest for something minor (not that TWOCing is trivial) leads to
detection of other, more serious crimes.
IIRC, Peter Sutcliffe was initially apprehended only for kerb-crawling.
Which time ? He was arrested years before he went on to commit more
murders.
He *almost* went on to commit more again if it hadn't been for the spidey senses of the policeman who arrested him going back to the scene of the arrest and discovering the murder kit.
Such occurrences are paradigms of my assertion that all criminals are unbelievably thick.
extent that Liz Truss could probably beat them.
If you put yourself into a position where your freedom (and possibly existence) could be wiped out by a simple traffic stop, then you my dim friend, did not think it through.
On 27/04/2024 03:02 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:09:07 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2024 09:26 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:45:34 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2024 11:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than >>>>>>>>> Dr Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a >>>>>>>> time of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold
Shipman in his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one >>>>>>> of his victims who reported him to the police. Not being struck
off, or suspended, by the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his
patients although there are suggestions his victims might have
numbered as many as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular
breached Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a >>>>>>> result, quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down. >>>>>>>
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the
authorities have to guess as to whether the killer is dead,
incarcerated or moved on ...
...or has been sentenced to six months for TWOCing.
An interesting intersection of crimes :)
It happens.
An arrest for something minor (not that TWOCing is trivial) leads to
detection of other, more serious crimes.
IIRC, Peter Sutcliffe was initially apprehended only for
kerb-crawling.
Which time ? He was arrested years before he went on to commit more
murders.
The history of the case is hardly a secret.
He *almost* went on to commit more again if it hadn't been for the
spidey senses of the policeman who arrested him going back to the scene
of the arrest and discovering the murder kit.
But he was arrested by accident. He was not suspected of being the
Yorkshire Ripper. That came later.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l957fjFregtU1@mid.individual.net...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l957fjFregtU1@mid.individual.net...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being >>> led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
I think we ought to move away from the idea of doctors being razor-brained people. But that doesn't stop them from doing some research on topics they have an over-riding interest in.
For example, 'climate activists' seem totally oblivious of the science (or perhaps that should more correctly read 'lack of science') on which their fears are based.
I posted a message earlier in this thread which calculated how much the planetary temperatures would fall if the UK not only stopped emitting CO2 today, but sequestered all the CO2 it had ever produced since the
industrial age began. That's far more drastic a measure than JSO campaigns for. It's a trivial 0.07degC, probably too small for any sensor to measure reliably.
But I also pointed out that this was based on an empirical finding in a different piece of research, that AFAICT had never been supported theoretically. That's a shaky foundation on which to base a $10trillion 'climate change' income stream. But people have now had 30-odd years of relentless climate propaganda shoved at them, and that has worked. No-one
now mentions 'the science', partly because the beneficiaries of that income stream don't want the issue reopened.
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being >>> led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by experts in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been wrong.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l96hopF2t1iU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l957fjFregtU1@mid.individual.net...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being >>>> led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
I think we ought to move away from the idea of doctors being razor-brained >> people. But that doesn't stop them from doing some research on topics they >> have an over-riding interest in.
For example, 'climate activists' seem totally oblivious of the science (or >> perhaps that should more correctly read 'lack of science') on which their
fears are based.
I posted a message earlier in this thread which calculated how much the
planetary temperatures would fall if the UK not only stopped emitting CO2
today, but sequestered all the CO2 it had ever produced since the
industrial age began. That's far more drastic a measure than JSO campaigns >> for. It's a trivial 0.07degC, probably too small for any sensor to measure >> reliably.
But I also pointed out that this was based on an empirical finding in a
different piece of research, that AFAICT had never been supported
theoretically. That's a shaky foundation on which to base a $10trillion
'climate change' income stream. But people have now had 30-odd years of
relentless climate propaganda shoved at them, and that has worked. No-one
now mentions 'the science', partly because the beneficiaries of that income >> stream don't want the issue reopened.
So just to be clear.
I assume you consider yourself to be a climate expert ?.
And so there's no possibility whatsoever of your having been led by
the nose yourself.
Because otherwise, if you're not a climate expert then it follows that
as with the doctors, at least so you argue, there's no reason to
suppose you've not been led by the nose as well.
Is there ?
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 01:37:50 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2024 03:02 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:09:07 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2024 09:26 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 15:45:34 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2024 11:11 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:50:12 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l8v42jFtu0hU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2024 07:28 am, Pancho wrote:
The sanctions against Dr Benn seem to hurt the public more than >>>>>>>>>> Dr Benn. One less doctor in a time of shortage.
You're right.
Clearly, Harold Shipman should never have been prosecuted in a >>>>>>>>> time of doctor shortage.
But you've rather missed the point, that what stopped Harold
Shipman in his tracks, was being suspected by the relatives of one >>>>>>>> of his victims who reported him to the police. Not being struck >>>>>>>> off, or suspended, by the MPTS.
As we know Shipman was found guilty of murdering 15 of his
patients although there are suggestions his victims might have >>>>>>>> numbered as many as 150, or more.
So that on the other hand....
If Harold Shipman had been a climate protester who regular
breached Court Injunctions, and was being regularly suspended as a >>>>>>>> result, quite possibly that might have brought the numbers down. >>>>>>>>
Who's to know ?
bb
This is like the case where a spate of killings stop and the
authorities have to guess as to whether the killer is dead,
incarcerated or moved on ...
...or has been sentenced to six months for TWOCing.
An interesting intersection of crimes :)
It happens.
An arrest for something minor (not that TWOCing is trivial) leads to
detection of other, more serious crimes.
IIRC, Peter Sutcliffe was initially apprehended only for
kerb-crawling.
Which time ? He was arrested years before he went on to commit more
murders.
The history of the case is hardly a secret.
He *almost* went on to commit more again if it hadn't been for the
spidey senses of the policeman who arrested him going back to the scene
of the arrest and discovering the murder kit.
But he was arrested by accident. He was not suspected of being the
Yorkshire Ripper. That came later.
Entirely my point. His entire career of crime came crashing down with an *accidental* arrest. If your career plan is so vulnerable, you really
need to work on your risk calculations.
That said, I am well aware that a lot of crims are so dim they never
quite catch on how dim they were. A few years ago, some bad lads decided
to move some quite heavy artillery from one location to another. They
would probably have gotten away with it if they had used a taxed and
insured car. They didn't, and drove it through the most dense network of traffic cameras in the West Midlands, if not the universe.
I am sure you can see where this is going.
Personally I reckon they were being tailed from the off. The "stop" was
just too easy though. Nothing to explain in court really. "Why did you
stop my client ?" "Well apart from no tax or insurance ?"
On 2024-04-28, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l96hopF2t1iU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l957fjFregtU1@mid.individual.net...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being >>>>> led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of >>>> every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
I think we ought to move away from the idea of doctors being razor-brained >>> people. But that doesn't stop them from doing some research on topics they >>> have an over-riding interest in.
For example, 'climate activists' seem totally oblivious of the science (or >>> perhaps that should more correctly read 'lack of science') on which their >>> fears are based.
I posted a message earlier in this thread which calculated how much the
planetary temperatures would fall if the UK not only stopped emitting CO2 >>> today, but sequestered all the CO2 it had ever produced since the
industrial age began. That's far more drastic a measure than JSO campaigns >>> for. It's a trivial 0.07degC, probably too small for any sensor to measure >>> reliably.
But I also pointed out that this was based on an empirical finding in a
different piece of research, that AFAICT had never been supported
theoretically. That's a shaky foundation on which to base a $10trillion
'climate change' income stream. But people have now had 30-odd years of
relentless climate propaganda shoved at them, and that has worked. No-one >>> now mentions 'the science', partly because the beneficiaries of that income >>> stream don't want the issue reopened.
So just to be clear.
I assume you consider yourself to be a climate expert ?.
And so there's no possibility whatsoever of your having been led by
the nose yourself.
Because otherwise, if you're not a climate expert then it follows that
as with the doctors, at least so you argue, there's no reason to
suppose you've not been led by the nose as well.
Is there ?
No, no, I'm sure the logical explanation is that every climate scientist
and expert in the world is wrong, and "Spike from the Internet" is right.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l96hopF2t1iU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l957fjFregtU1@mid.individual.net...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being >>>> led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
I think we ought to move away from the idea of doctors being razor-brained >> people. But that doesn't stop them from doing some research on topics they >> have an over-riding interest in.
For example, 'climate activists' seem totally oblivious of the science (or >> perhaps that should more correctly read 'lack of science') on which their
fears are based.
I posted a message earlier in this thread which calculated how much the
planetary temperatures would fall if the UK not only stopped emitting CO2
today, but sequestered all the CO2 it had ever produced since the
industrial age began. That's far more drastic a measure than JSO campaigns >> for. It's a trivial 0.07degC, probably too small for any sensor to measure >> reliably.
But I also pointed out that this was based on an empirical finding in a
different piece of research, that AFAICT had never been supported
theoretically. That's a shaky foundation on which to base a $10trillion
'climate change' income stream. But people have now had 30-odd years of
relentless climate propaganda shoved at them, and that has worked. No-one
now mentions 'the science', partly because the beneficiaries of that income >> stream don't want the issue reopened.
So just to be clear.
I assume you consider yourself to be a climate expert ?.
And so there's no possibility whatsoever of your having been led by the nose yourself.
Because otherwise, if you're not a climate expert then it follows that as with
the doctors, at least so you argue, there's no reason to suppose you've not been
led by the nose as well.
On 26/04/2024 10:52, Simon Parker wrote:
Dr Benn gave up being a GP so she could protest. If anyone is
responsible for their being one less doctor in the system "in a time
of shortage" it is JSO as Dr Benn is out protesting rather than
seeing patients. (Which I consider her right, for the avoidance of
doubt.) You seem to think that the suspension will have any effect on
the number of GPs working? Dr Benn wasn't working as a GP before
the suspension, won't be working as a GP during the suspension and is
unlikely to work as a GP following the suspension, (the latter point
made clear in the MPTS Tribunal findings, for anyone that's bothered
to read them). Or weren't you aware of this and were merely intent
on parroting your views without reference to the facts of the case in
hand?
The suspicion is that she gave up being a GP because she, correctly, anticipated conflict with the GMC.
From message http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=171439753100
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being >>>>> led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of >>>> every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether
the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is
being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about,
but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate
scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34% expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to
be being led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect
of every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is
led by experts in matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to
have been wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of
whether the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert
themselves is being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked
about, but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively
publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global
warming and climate change.
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning ‘climate change’ were
examined to see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed
no view, 34% expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure
when it comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of >>>>> every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by
experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been
wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether
the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is
being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about,
but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate
scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. >>
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to >> see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34%
expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it >> being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it >> comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
As to the actual figures here's what another bunch of stooges and
patsies*, eight in all, who are all presumably in the pay of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers, have to say on the
subject of consensus
quote:
Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97-98%)
regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman
2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009
(Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution
of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment
of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993-2003 matching the search 'global climate change' found that none
of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus
position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early
1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).
:unquote
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
bb
* This claim is made for ironic purposes only.
snip
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being >>>> led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by experts in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ?
Irrespective of whether
the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is
being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about,
but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
And there are plenty of links to reputable sources confirming that claim.
So there's a consensus on the consensus.
So now presumably, everyone who's not a climate expert themselves
is being led by the nose by the over 90% of actively publishing
climate scientists, who have somehow succeeded in fooling Govts
worldwide by deliberately falsifying or deliberately ignoring
relevant data, and arriving at manifestly false conclusions
thereby.
And to what end ?
Presumably it's all at the behest of a worldwide consortium of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers; who would be the only
real beneficiaries from such a deception.
While back in the real world, Big Oil* still budgets USD 22 bilion
annually on exploration alone
bb
* Chemistry and physics dictate that nuclear and taxation aside,
compared with all others hydrocarbons are by far the cheapest and
most highly concentrated sources of energy available.
And so by far
the most profitable. And so far better placed to buy off over
90% of the world's climate scientists, if such were possible.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of >>>>> every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether
the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is
being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about,
but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate
scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. >>
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to >> see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34%
expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it >> being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it >> comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
As to the actual figures here's what another bunch of stooges and
patsies*, eight in all, who are all presumably in the pay of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers, have to say on the
subject of consensus
quote:
Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97-98%)
regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman
2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009
(Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution
of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment
of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993-2003 matching the search 'global climate change' found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus
position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early
1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).
:unquote
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
bb
* This claim is made for ironic purposes only.
snip
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be
being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led
by experts in matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have
been wrong.
A cursory reading also might suggest that had Dr Benn not repeatedly self-reported, the GMC might have preferred to simply ignore her;
rather than embroil themselves in a public controversy they could
probably never hope to win. But I stand to be corrected on this
latter point.
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it >>> comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
Have you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
Try: 33 34
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to two
significant figures)
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:23:38 BST, "billy bookcase" wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of >>>>>> every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by
experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been
wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether >>>> the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is >>>> being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about, >>>> but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate >>>> scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to >>> see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34%
expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it >>> being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it >>> comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
As to the actual figures here's what another bunch of stooges and
patsies*, eight in all, who are all presumably in the pay of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers, have to say on the
subject of consensus
quote:
Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97-98%)
regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman
2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that
scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009
(Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements
issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution >> of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment >> of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of
abstracts published from 1993-2003 matching the search 'global climate
change' found that none
Shouldn't that [b]e 'most'?!
Oreskes' 2004 paper is the one most misinterpreted
in connection with the 97% figure,
but it did conclude that anthropogenic
climate change was a thing, and a posotion supported by most climate scientists. As to 'how many is most', about 80% seems to be about right:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=1b46a7e81157
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
Have you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
Try: 33 ÷ 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
Have you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
Try: 33 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11:32 29 Apr 2024, Spike said:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to
be being led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect
of every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is
led by experts in matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to
have been wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of
whether the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert
themselves is being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked
about, but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively
publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global
warming and climate change.
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning ‘climate change’ were
examined to see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed
no view, 34% expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the
possibility of it being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure
when it comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
I hadn't heard of that and wouldn't have believed it, until I downloaded
the paper after reading your post to see where it was stated.
It's a deplorable misuse of statistics. Sadly this sort of misleading
thing is all too common in today's world with its post-modern logic. Truly junk science is now pouring out of some university departments.
----
"Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming"
<https://www.ufjf.br/engsanitariaeambiental/files/2013/05/Cook-et-al.- 2013.pdf>
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l9al1jFlqjnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageHave you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>
Try: 33 ч 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
So just to be clear.
You're claiming that 34 (the big number) is only 97% of 33 (the small number), are you ?.
As in
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
" If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%"
bb
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of >>>>> every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether
the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is
being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about,
but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate
scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. >>
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to >> see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34%
expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it >> being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it >> comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So it’s always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
As to the actual figures here's what another bunch of stooges and
patsies*, eight in all, who are all presumably in the pay of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers, have to say on the
subject of consensus
quote:
Surveys of climate scientists
have found strong agreement (97-98%)
regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman
2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009
(Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution
of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment
of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993-2003 matching the search 'global climate change' found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus
position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early
1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).
:unquote
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
bb
* This claim is made for ironic purposes only.
snip
On 29/04/2024 13:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageSpike's calculation is correct assuming his original numbers are correct
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to >>> see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34%
expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it >>> being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it >>> comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:v0objr$1q2ur$1@dont-email.me...
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:23:38 BST, "billy bookcase" wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of >>>>>>>> every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by
experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been
wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether >>>>>> the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is >>>>>> being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about, >>>>>> but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate >>>>>> scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to
see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34% >>>>> expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it
being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
As to the actual figures here's what another bunch of stooges and
patsies*, eight in all, who are all presumably in the pay of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers, have to say on the
subject of consensus
quote:
Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97-98%)
regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman
2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that
scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009
(Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements >>>> issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution >>>> of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment >>>> of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of >>>> abstracts published from 1993-2003 matching the search 'global climate >>>> change' found that none
Shouldn't that [b]e 'most'?!
Er no. None of 982 disagreed with the consenuse
Oreskes' 2004 paper is the one most misinterpreted
in connection with the 97% figure,
Only from people who expect every paper on climate science to
express an opinion on AGW.
While not claiming to be any expert in any way, I would imagine most
papers on climate science are mainly concerned with various methods
of data acquisition and measurement, methods of reconciling different
sources of data and just simply amassing and analysing data without
speculating on topics outside of the scope of that paper
Whereas if the 34 papers who did specifically mention AGW,.
that's 34 - (the big number) is divided by the 33 who agreed with
the consensus (the samll number) the result does indeed come out
at 97%
That's a rather better way of approaching things than dividing the number
who agreed (the small number) by the total who mentioned AGW
(the big number). Which indeed comes to 103%
but it did conclude that anthropogenic
climate change was a thing, and a posotion supported by most climate
scientists. As to 'how many is most', about 80% seems to be about right: >>>
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=1b46a7e81157
Unfortunately nobody has yet come up with a satisfoctory explanation as to >> how a consortium of solar panel, windmill, EV and bicycle manufactures
have somehow garnered sufficient resources to outspend BIG Oil when to
comes to briblng climate scientists into publishing grossly misleading and >> flawed research
snip
bb
The thing that you are overlooking here is that 66% of papers expressed no opinion at all about AGW, so the real sum you should perform is 33/66 =
50%.
Which means that papers supporting the concept of anthropogenic climate change amounted to only half of those published, a very long way from your
97 or 103%.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
Have you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
Try: 33 ÷ 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l9al1jFlqjnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageHave you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>
Try: 33 ÷ 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
So just to be clear.
You're claiming that 34 (the big number) is only 97% of 33 (the small number), are you ?.
As in
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
" If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%"...
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message news:v0objr$1q2ur$1@dont-email.me...
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:23:38 BST, "billy bookcase" wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of >>>>>>> every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by
experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been
wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether >>>>> the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is >>>>> being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about, >>>>> but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate >>>>> scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to >>>> see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34% >>>> expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it
being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
As to the actual figures here's what another bunch of stooges and
patsies*, eight in all, who are all presumably in the pay of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers, have to say on the
subject of consensus
quote:
Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97-98%)
regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman
2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that
scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009
(Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements >>> issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution >>> of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment >>> of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of
abstracts published from 1993-2003 matching the search 'global climate
change' found that none
Shouldn't that [b]e 'most'?!
Er no. None of 982 disagreed with the consenuse
Oreskes' 2004 paper is the one most misinterpreted
in connection with the 97% figure,
Only from people who expect every paper on climate science to
express an opinion on AGW.
While not claiming to be any expert in any way, I would imagine most
papers on climate science are mainly concerned with various methods
of data acquisition and measurement, methods of reconciling different
sources of data and just simply amassing and analysing data without speculating on topics outside of the scope of that paper
Whereas if the 34 papers who did specifically mention AGW,.
that's 34 - (the big number) is divided by the 33 who agreed with
the consensus (the samll number) the result does indeed come out
at 97%
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message news:v0objr$1q2ur$1@dont-email.me...
[SNIP]
Oreskes' 2004 paper is the one most misinterpreted in connection with
the 97% figure,
Only from people who expect every paper on climate science to express
an opinion on AGW.
While not claiming to be any expert in any way, I would imagine most
papers on climate science are mainly concerned with various methods
of data acquisition and measurement, methods of reconciling different
sources of data and just simply amassing and analysing data without speculating on topics outside of the scope of that paper
Whereas if the 34 papers who did specifically mention AGW,. that's 34
- (the big number) is divided by the 33 who agreed with the consensus
(the samll number) the result does indeed come out at 97%
Dividing any number by a number which is larger than it is bound to come
out at less than 1 and cannot possibly come out at 1.03.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97% ?
Are you sure ?
So what percentage do you think you get, if you divide 33 by 33 ?
I'd say it was 100% myself. Do you agree ?
So if 34 is bigger than 33,, then how can it be represent a
smaller percentage of 33 than 33 itself ?
"BrritSki" <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l9bsjfF36k7U4@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 13:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageSpike's calculation is correct assuming his original numbers are correct
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to >>>> see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34% >>>> expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it
being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
Oh really ?
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97% ?
Are you sure ?
So what percentage do you think you get, if you divide 33 by 33 ?
I'd say it was 100% myself. Do you agree ?
So if 34 is bigger than 33,, then how can it be represent a
smaller percentage of 33 than 33 itself ?
Remainder snipped
On 30/04/2024 13:16, JNugent wrote:
Dividing any number by a number which is larger than it is bound to
come out at less than 1 and cannot possibly come out at 1.03.
-100 > -103 and -103/-100 = 1.03
On 19:37 29 Apr 2024, billy bookcase said:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:v0objr$1q2ur$1@dont-email.me...
[SNIP]
Oreskes' 2004 paper is the one most misinterpreted in connection with
the 97% figure,
Only from people who expect every paper on climate science to express
an opinion on AGW.
While not claiming to be any expert in any way, I would imagine most
papers on climate science are mainly concerned with various methods
of data acquisition and measurement, methods of reconciling different
sources of data and just simply amassing and analysing data without
speculating on topics outside of the scope of that paper
Whereas if the 34 papers who did specifically mention AGW,. that's 34
- (the big number) is divided by the 33 who agreed with the consensus
(the samll number) the result does indeed come out at 97%
Unfortunately that result is wrong.
thee parts in your percentage
calculations are exactly upside down.
Some calculators require the user to first enter the denominator for a percentage calculation and then they allow the user to enter several different numerators for repeated percentage calculations on the same
base.
Perhaps your understanding about how to calculate percentages is basd on
such a calculator, but it is using numbers entered back to front.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it >>> comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
Oh dear. You just seem to have lost some credibility, at least in the arithmetic sphere.
You might benefit from a very careful re-read of what I wrote.
On 30 Apr 2024 at 09:30:00 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:v0objr$1q2ur$1@dont-email.me...
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:23:38 BST, "billy bookcase" wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by
experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been
wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether >>>>>>> the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is >>>>>>> being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about, >>>>>>> but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate >>>>>>> scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to
see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34% >>>>>> expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it
being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>>
As to the actual figures here's what another bunch of stooges and
patsies*, eight in all, who are all presumably in the pay of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers, have to say on the
subject of consensus
quote:
Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97-98%)
regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman >>>>> 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that >>>>> scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009
(Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements >>>>> issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution
of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment
of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of >>>>> abstracts published from 1993-2003 matching the search 'global climate >>>>> change' found that none
Shouldn't that [b]e 'most'?!
Er no. None of 982 disagreed with the consenuse
Oreskes' 2004 paper is the one most misinterpreted
in connection with the 97% figure,
Only from people who expect every paper on climate science to
express an opinion on AGW.
While not claiming to be any expert in any way, I would imagine most
papers on climate science are mainly concerned with various methods
of data acquisition and measurement, methods of reconciling different
sources of data and just simply amassing and analysing data without
speculating on topics outside of the scope of that paper
Whereas if the 34 papers who did specifically mention AGW,.
that's 34 - (the big number) is divided by the 33 who agreed with
the consensus (the samll number) the result does indeed come out
at 97%
That's a rather better way of approaching things than dividing the number >>> who agreed (the small number) by the total who mentioned AGW
(the big number). Which indeed comes to 103%
but it did conclude that anthropogenic
climate change was a thing, and a posotion supported by most climate
scientists. As to 'how many is most', about 80% seems to be about right: >>>>
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=1b46a7e81157
Unfortunately nobody has yet come up with a satisfoctory explanation as to
how a consortium of solar panel, windmill, EV and bicycle manufactures
have somehow garnered sufficient resources to outspend BIG Oil when to
comes to briblng climate scientists into publishing grossly misleading and >>> flawed research
snip
bb
The thing that you are overlooking here is that 66% of papers expressed no >> opinion at all about AGW, so the real sum you should perform is 33/66 =
50%.
Which means that papers supporting the concept of anthropogenic climate
change amounted to only half of those published, a very long way from your >> 97 or 103%.
I don't want to take sides on your main conspiracy theory, but that logic is nonsense. I am sure the majority of climate papers don't express an opinion on
AGW because it is irrelevant to the subject of the paper. This might be on weather radar in the Arctic, cloud-seeding experiments or a new design of anemometer or anything else which gives no excuse, let alone an obligation, for expressing an opinion on climate change. So to say that the writers of those papers therefore don't support AGW is absurd.
On 30/04/2024 07:57 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l9al1jFlqjnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageHave you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>>
Try: 33 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to
two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
So just to be clear.
You're claiming that 34 (the big number) is only 97% of 33 (the small number), are you
?.
It's the other way round. Where a fraction consists of N/N+y, the result has to be less
than 1. Where it is N+y/N, the result has to be greater than 1.
As in
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
" If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%"...
...which is correct. Try it on a calculator.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
Have you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
Try: 33 ч 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
On 30 Apr 2024 at 09:30:00 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:v0objr$1q2ur$1@dont-email.me...
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:23:38 BST, "billy bookcase" wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l977g3F60crU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 12:09 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote...
Presumably increasing numbers of medical professionals appear to be being
led by the nose, not being climate experts.
Presumably therefore, you also are being led by the nose in respect of
every topic on which you yourself, are not an expert.
That is arguably the way (semantics permitting) in which everyone is led by
experts
in
matters of which they (the led) know little.
And it isn't as though an expert witness has never been proven to have been
wrong.
But that's not what the OP is arguing, is it ? Irrespective of whether >>>>>>> the expert is right or wrong, anyone who's not an expert themselves is >>>>>>> being led by the nose
Although in this instance, it's not a single expert being talked about, >>>>>>> but a consensus. Such that well over 90% of actively publishing climate >>>>>>> scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Ah, this fairy tale of >90% consensus.
Some 10,000 scientific papers mentioning 'climate change' were examined to
see whether they supported it or otherwise. 66% expressed no view, 34% >>>>>> expressed a possible correlation, with 33% mentioning the possibility of it
being anthropogenic.
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>>
As to the actual figures here's what another bunch of stooges and
patsies*, eight in all, who are all presumably in the pay of solar
panel, windmill, EV, and bicycle manufacturers, have to say on the
subject of consensus
quote:
Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97-98%)
regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman >>>>> 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that >>>>> scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009
(Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements >>>>> issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution
of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).
The peer-reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment
of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of >>>>> abstracts published from 1993-2003 matching the search 'global climate >>>>> change' found that none
Shouldn't that [b]e 'most'?!
Er no. None of 982 disagreed with the consenuse
Oreskes' 2004 paper is the one most misinterpreted
in connection with the 97% figure,
Only from people who expect every paper on climate science to
express an opinion on AGW.
While not claiming to be any expert in any way, I would imagine most
papers on climate science are mainly concerned with various methods
of data acquisition and measurement, methods of reconciling different
sources of data and just simply amassing and analysing data without
speculating on topics outside of the scope of that paper
Whereas if the 34 papers who did specifically mention AGW,.
that's 34 - (the big number) is divided by the 33 who agreed with
the consensus (the samll number) the result does indeed come out
at 97%
That's a rather better way of approaching things than dividing the number >>> who agreed (the small number) by the total who mentioned AGW
(the big number). Which indeed comes to 103%
but it did conclude that anthropogenic
climate change was a thing, and a posotion supported by most climate
scientists. As to 'how many is most', about 80% seems to be about right: >>>>
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=1b46a7e81157
Unfortunately nobody has yet come up with a satisfoctory explanation as to
how a consortium of solar panel, windmill, EV and bicycle manufactures
have somehow garnered sufficient resources to outspend BIG Oil when to
comes to briblng climate scientists into publishing grossly misleading and >>> flawed research
snip
bb
The thing that you are overlooking here is that 66% of papers expressed no >> opinion at all about AGW, so the real sum you should perform is 33/66 =
50%.
Which means that papers supporting the concept of anthropogenic climate
change amounted to only half of those published, a very long way from your >> 97 or 103%.
I don't want to take sides on your main conspiracy theory, but that logic is nonsense. I am sure the majority of climate papers don't express an opinion on
AGW because it is irrelevant to the subject of the paper. This might be on weather radar in the Arctic, cloud-seeding experiments or a new design of anemometer or anything else which gives no excuse, let alone an obligation, for expressing an opinion on climate change. So to say that the writers of those papers therefore don't support AGW is absurd.
On 19:37 29 Apr 2024, billy bookcase said:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:v0objr$1q2ur$1@dont-email.me...
[SNIP]
Oreskes' 2004 paper is the one most misinterpreted in connection with
the 97% figure,
Only from people who expect every paper on climate science to express
an opinion on AGW.
While not claiming to be any expert in any way, I would imagine most
papers on climate science are mainly concerned with various methods
of data acquisition and measurement, methods of reconciling different
sources of data and just simply amassing and analysing data without
speculating on topics outside of the scope of that paper
Whereas if the 34 papers who did specifically mention AGW,. that's 34
- (the big number) is divided by the 33 who agreed with the consensus
(the samll number) the result does indeed come out at 97%
Unfortunately that result is wrong. The parts in your percentage
calculations are exactly upside down.
Some calculators require the user to first enter the denominator for a percentage calculation and then they allow the user to enter several different numerators for repeated percentage calculations on the same
base.
Perhaps your understanding about how to calculate percentages is basd on
such a calculator, but it is using numbers entered back to front.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide
33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject.
Have you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
Try: 33 ? 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
I've not been following all the ramifications of this thread but surely we can agree that to express A as a percentage of B the correct formula is: A/B*100
The OP gave as his result 0.9705882352941176.
Which is 33/34
And so to convert 33/34 into a percentage you divide it into 100.
Which gives the correct result. of 103%
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9c8fiFt6h1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/04/2024 07:57 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l9al1jFlqjnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageHave you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>>>
Try: 33 ÷ 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to
two significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
So just to be clear.
You're claiming that 34 (the big number) is only 97% of 33 (the small number), are you
?.
It's the other way round. Where a fraction consists of N/N+y, the result has to be less
than 1. Where it is N+y/N, the result has to be greater than 1.
Will you please just answer the question.
Is 34 97% of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
As in
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
" If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%"...
...which is correct. Try it on a calculator.
Never mind calculators.
So you're saying that 34 is 97% of 33.?
Is that correct ?
Do you agree that 33 is 100 % of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
In which case how can 34 which is 1 bigger, be only 97% of 33 ?
"Sir Tim" <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:l9cj0eF8apU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageHave you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>
Try: 33 ? 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, >>>> 97% to two
significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
I've not been following all the ramifications of this thread but surely we >> can agree that to express A as a percentage of B the correct formula is:
A/B*100
The OP gave as his result 0.9705882352941176.
Which is 33/34
And so to convert 33/34 into a percentage you divide it into 100.
That question was: "What is the answer to 33 ÷ 34?".
And the correct answer to that, to two significant figures, is 0.97
(which may be expressed as 97% if you prefer).
On 30/04/2024 04:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l9c8fiFt6h1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/04/2024 07:57 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l9al1jFlqjnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageHave you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>>>>
Try: 33 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to
two significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
So just to be clear.
You're claiming that 34 (the big number) is only 97% of 33 (the small number), are
you
?.
It's the other way round. Where a fraction consists of N/N+y, the result has to be
less
than 1. Where it is N+y/N, the result has to be greater than 1.
Will you please just answer the question.
Is 34 97% of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
Of course it isn't.
As in
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
" If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%"...
...which is correct. Try it on a calculator.
Never mind calculators.
So you're saying that 34 is 97% of 33.?
Is that correct ?
I am not saying that and have never said it. You are now attempting a sleight of hand.
Do you agree that 33 is 100 % of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
In which case how can 34 which is 1 bigger, be only 97% of 33 ?
You are answering a question which is completely different from the one you set
yourself some hours ago.
That question was: "What is the answer to 33 34?".
And the correct answer to that, to two significant figures, is 0.97 (which may be
expressed as 97% if you prefer).
From which it follows that 33 is .0.97 or 97% of 34.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9dd9vF4306U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/04/2024 04:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l9c8fiFt6h1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/04/2024 07:57 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l9al1jFlqjnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageHave you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>>>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>>>>>
Try: 33 ч 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to
two significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
So just to be clear.
You're claiming that 34 (the big number) is only 97% of 33 (the small number), are
you
?.
It's the other way round. Where a fraction consists of N/N+y, the result has to be
less
than 1. Where it is N+y/N, the result has to be greater than 1.
Will you please just answer the question.
Is 34 97% of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
Of course it isn't.
As in
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
" If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%"...
...which is correct. Try it on a calculator.
Never mind calculators.
So you're saying that 34 is 97% of 33.?
Is that correct ?
I am not saying that and have never said it. You are now attempting a sleight of hand.
Do you agree that 33 is 100 % of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
In which case how can 34 which is 1 bigger, be only 97% of 33 ?
You are answering a question which is completely different from the one you set
yourself some hours ago.
That question was: "What is the answer to 33 ч 34?".
And the correct answer to that, to two significant figures, is 0.97 (which may be
expressed as 97% if you prefer).
I think I've located the source of the/my problem
The 0.97 or 97% above doesn't mean that 34 is 0.97 or 97%. of 33;;
but rather that 33 only has room for 0.97 or 97% of 34.
From which it follows that 33 is .0.97 or 97% of 34.
However while the maths and logic are impeccable I nevertheless
find I have a mental block in visualising that last implication.
Which is possibly why I've always found it inuitively easier
to divide the big number by the small number and calculate
percentages that way
thus 100/(34/33) = 97%
Protext used to have a very nice command line calculator
same as in now offered by Powertoys.
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9dd9vF4306U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/04/2024 04:45 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l9c8fiFt6h1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/04/2024 07:57 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l9al1jFlqjnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in messageHave you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure when it
comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you divide >>>>>>>>> 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the subject. >>>>>>>>
Try: 33 ÷ 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put another way, 97% to
two significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
So just to be clear.
You're claiming that 34 (the big number) is only 97% of 33 (the small number), are
you
?.
It's the other way round. Where a fraction consists of N/N+y, the result has to be
less
than 1. Where it is N+y/N, the result has to be greater than 1.
Will you please just answer the question.
Is 34 97% of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
Of course it isn't.
As in
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
" If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%"...
...which is correct. Try it on a calculator.
Never mind calculators.
So you're saying that 34 is 97% of 33.?
Is that correct ?
I am not saying that and have never said it. You are now attempting a sleight of hand.
Do you agree that 33 is 100 % of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
In which case how can 34 which is 1 bigger, be only 97% of 33 ?
You are answering a question which is completely different from the one you set
yourself some hours ago.
That question was: "What is the answer to 33 ÷ 34?".
And the correct answer to that, to two significant figures, is 0.97 (which may be
expressed as 97% if you prefer).
I think I've located the source of the/my problem
The 0.97 or 97% above doesn't mean that 34 is 0.97 or 97%. of 33;;
but rather that 33 only has room for 0.97 or 97% of 34.
From which it follows that 33 is .0.97 or 97% of 34.
However while the maths and logic are impeccable I nevertheless
find I have a mental block in visualising that last implication.
Which is possibly why I've always found it inuitively easier
to divide the big number by the small number and calculate
percentages that way
thus 100/(34/33) = 97%
Protext used to have a very nice command line calculator
same as in now offered by Powertoys.
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Do you agree that 33 is 100 % of 33 ?
Yes or no ?
In which case how can 34 which is 1 bigger, be only 97% of 33 ?
You are answering a question which is completely different from the one you set
yourself some hours ago.
That question was: "What is the answer to 33 ÷ 34?".
And the correct answer to that, to two significant figures, is 0.97 (which may be
expressed as 97% if you prefer).
I think I've located the source of the/my problem
The 0.97 or 97% above doesn't mean that 34 is 0.97 or 97%. of 33;;
but rather that 33 only has room for 0.97 or 97% of 34.
From which it follows that 33 is .0.97 or 97% of 34.
However while the maths and logic are impeccable I nevertheless
find I have a mental block in visualising that last implication.
Which is possibly why I've always found it inuitively easier
to divide the big number by the small number and calculate
percentages that way
thus 100/(34/33) = 97%
Protext used to have a very nice command line calculator
same as in now offered by Powertoys.
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
The (33/34)*100 method requires no further steps before performing the calculation, but your method requires an extra one, which is the inversion
of the basic division, to give 34/33, and then another division into 100 to give the %age, with an extra chance of making an error.
On 01/05/2024 08:35 am, billy bookcase wrote:
The 0.97 or 97% above doesn't mean that 34 is 0.97 or 97%. of 33;;
Bingo! It certainly doesn't.
but rather that 33 only has room for 0.97 or 97% of 34.
That's a way of putting it which I haven't previously encountered, but since 34 is
larger than 33, er... 33 can't be larger than 34.
I hated maths at school. Still do.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9edjoF8jp0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
snip
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
The (33/34)*100 method requires no further steps before performing the
calculation, but your method requires an extra one, which is the inversion >> of the basic division, to give 34/33, and then another division into 100 to >> give the %age, with an extra chance of making an error.
An error ?
Consider say numbers under 150, leaving out prime numbers.
I don't know about nowadays, but
<brass band> in the old days we were all taught our tables </brass band>
Such as that if you walked up to many such people in the street and asked them "what is 56 divided by 7 ?" or "what is 108 divided by 9 ?" or "how many
3's are there in 36 ?" they'd answer you almost immediately if not straight away. They certainly wouldn't have to get a pencil and piece of paper.
Now it's your turn
Walk up to those self same people in the street and ask them "What is 7 divided
by 56 ?" or "what is 9 divided by 108?" or what is "3 divided by 36 ?" and how long do
you think they'd take to answer ? That's is after scratching round Columbo style, for a piece of paper and a pencil.
Which for practical purposed means that people are more likely
to be able to identify mistakes using the "wrong method" without
having to check using pencil and paper
Then having done that there's the "simple matter" of multiplying by 100. Which is this case doesn't simply involve sticking two nought on the
end
At least not to 0.083333333333333 it doesn't.
That's 9 divided by 108 by the way as I'm sure you already knew.
And so much more "interesting" than boring old 12, the answer to
doing it the "wrong way"
So no. To multiply that by 100 you need to move the decimal point
by two places (or was it three, no definitely two ) and nobodies
ever heard of mistakes being made by putting the decimal point
in the wrong place.
Not that many would ever notice in any case.
As what's the odd .833, 8.33, or .000833 among friends ?
And in any case with calculators its simply a matter of keying
in the same three numbers along with two brackets along and two
different symbols in a slightly different order.
Prime numbers for instance are interesting. Despite men being jumped up chimpanzees and or/cavemen they eventually devised a system of
symbols and rules usually using ten as a base same as our fingers
which somehow has all these *hidden* properties which mathematicians struggle to discover and then create theorems etc. and then they and others try and prove.
So that did these "mathematical truths" exist before Big Bang for
instance ? Which is admittedly more like the perfect chess game than
anything to do with measuring your kitchen or anything.
On 01/05/2024 14:59, JNugent wrote:
Interestingly [FSVO interesting] I just came across this which goes to the source of
the 97% consensus with links to the original studies so they can be checked against the
comments made in the article.
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/01/the-in-depth-story-behind-the-97-of-scientists-climate-fraud/>
On 2024-05-02, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Prime numbers for instance are interesting. Despite men being jumped up
chimpanzees and or/cavemen they eventually devised a system of
symbols and rules usually using ten as a base same as our fingers
which somehow has all these *hidden* properties which mathematicians
struggle to discover and then create theorems etc. and then they and others >> try and prove.
Most mathematical properties don't have anything to do with what base
you use. The number 17 for example is prime no matter whether you write
it as 17, 0x11, or 0b10001.
So that did these "mathematical truths" exist before Big Bang for
instance ? Which is admittedly more like the perfect chess game than
anything to do with measuring your kitchen or anything.
Yes. Rules and constants of physics may change in other areas of the universe, or at different times, or indeed in other universes. But 17
is prime from the beginning of time to the end of time and in any
alternate universes that might exist too, it's pure maths, it's
independent of physical reality.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2024 08:35 am, billy bookcase wrote:
The 0.97 or 97% above doesn't mean that 34 is 0.97 or 97%. of 33;;
Bingo! It certainly doesn't.
but rather that 33 only has room for 0.97 or 97% of 34.
That's a way of putting it which I haven't previously encountered, but since 34 is
larger than 33, er... 33 can't be larger than 34.
So how *do* you put it ?
As I'm genuinely interested as it might help me visualise it.
I hated maths at school. Still do.
Maths can be useful But maybe not the stuff we were taught at school.
I only ever needed to use percentages years later and having
conveniently forgotten the proper method I simply worked
backwards. Something like "I know 6 is 25% of 24, so how can I juggle
24, 6, and 100 to get 25 ?. And for fairly obvious reasons I divided
24 by 6 and not the other way round.
Prime numbers for instance are interesting. Despite men being jumped up chimpanzees and or/cavemen they eventually devised a system of
symbols and rules usually using ten as a base same as our fingers
which somehow has all these *hidden* properties which mathematicians struggle to discover and then create theorems etc. and then they and others try and prove. So that did these "mathematical truths" exist before Big Bang for instance ? Which is admittedly more like the perfect chess game than anything to do with measuring your kitchen or anything.
On 01/05/2024 14:59, JNugent wrote:
Interestingly [FSVO interesting] I just came across this which goes to
the source of the 97% consensus with links to the original studies so
they can be checked against the comments made in the article.
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/01/the-in-depth-story-behind-the-97-of-scientists-climate-fraud/>
"BrritSki" <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2024 14:59, JNugent wrote:
Interestingly [FSVO interesting] I just came across this which goes to the source of
the 97% consensus with links to the original studies so they can be checked against the
comments made in the article.
<https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/01/the-in-depth-story-behind-the-97-of-scientists-climate-fraud/>Never mind blind links, which particular evidence and arguments proposed in that link
do you yourself find the most convincing ?
While the comments in the article appear to be mainly concerned with American politics and former President Obama and Al Gore and a study published in 2011.
Since which time of course, things have hardly improved
"The 10 warmest years in the 174-year record have all occurred during the last decade (2014-2023)."
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2023-was-warmest-year-modern-temperature-record
Doubtless brought to you by another team of stooges, patsies, and corrupt politicians
who are all on the payroll of that self same-consortium of solar panel, windmill
EV and bicycle manufacturers who are somehow financing the whole thing.
And who nowadays are also probably all Chinese.
Its maybe just as well nobody has yet copped on to that one
Climate hoax all the work of China !
On 2024-05-02, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Prime numbers for instance are interesting. Despite men being jumped up
chimpanzees and or/cavemen they eventually devised a system of
symbols and rules usually using ten as a base same as our fingers
which somehow has all these *hidden* properties which mathematicians
struggle to discover and then create theorems etc. and then they and others >> try and prove.
Most mathematical properties don't have anything to do with what base
you use. The number 17 for example is prime no matter whether you write
it as 17, 0x11, or 0b10001.
So that did these "mathematical truths" exist before Big Bang for
instance ? Which is admittedly more like the perfect chess game than
anything to do with measuring your kitchen or anything.
Yes. Rules and constants of physics may change in other areas of the universe, or at different times, or indeed in other universes. But 17
is prime from the beginning of time to the end of time and in any
alternate universes that might exist too, it's pure maths, it's
independent of physical reality.
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when
the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful claims into law.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l9al1jFlqjnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 18:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99sm5Fi8mgU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:23 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l99b94Ffnc4U3@mid.individual.net...
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted
figure when it comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you
divide 33 by 34 you got 103%.
So its always useful to be corrected by a real expert on the
subject.
Have you got the Windows Calculator app on that device?
Try: 33 34
Eh ?
I assure you that it comes out at 0.9705882352941176 (or put
another way, 97% to two significant figures)
Which when expressed as percentage is
100/(33/34)=103.030303030303030%
Sorry, no it isn't. It's 100*(33/34).
So just to be clear.
You're claiming that 34 (the big number) is only 97% of 33 (the small number), are you ?.
As in
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
" If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%"
bb
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:l9bog5Fqr8mU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
snip
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure
when it comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you
divide 33 by 34 you got 103%.
Oh dear. You just seem to have lost some credibility, at least in the
arithmetic sphere.
You might benefit from a very careful re-read of what I wrote.
No need.
You wrote
"If you divide 33 *by* 34, you get 97%"
And not, "If you divide 33 *into* 34, you get 97%"
Which would have been correct.
Penny dropped yet ?
remainder snipped
bb
On 16:18 30 Apr 2024, billy bookcase said:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l9bog5Fqr8mU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
snip
If you divide 33 by 34, you get 97%, a famous much-trumpeted figure
when it comes to an alleged scientific consensus on AGW.
It take it you know all this, of course.
No, not at all.
Because up until now at least, I'd always believed that if you
divide 33 by 34 you got 103%.
Oh dear. You just seem to have lost some credibility, at least in the
arithmetic sphere.
You might benefit from a very careful re-read of what I wrote.
No need.
You wrote
"If you divide 33 *by* 34, you get 97%"
And not, "If you divide 33 *into* 34, you get 97%"
Which would have been correct.
Penny dropped yet ?
remainder snipped
bb
I presume you realise you made a mistake about percentages.
Shades of the shonky stats NASA used for safety around the Challenger disaster that Feynman saw through.
I think the crux of the issues was a 1/1000 chance x a 1/1000 chance is
*not* a 1/1000,000 chance.
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when
the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae
provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful
claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when
the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae
provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful
claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the >hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two >children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
On 06/05/2024 11:52, Billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Reps" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "Billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the
hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a paediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (IDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a non-smoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
Yes, at the time it was believed that cot death was a independent event, and not
associated with genes or environment. That has since been correctly ridiculed. However
Roy Meadows simple repeated the thinking at the time. He was then made a scope-goat.
Either way, it's probably better than DNA evidence we seem to be so reliant on.
1(2)(b) this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country.
====
Parliament has voted therefore it must be true!
On 06/05/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the
hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
Yes, at the time it was believed that cot death was a independent event,
and not associated with genes or environment. That has since been
correctly ridiculed. However Roy Meadows simple repeated the thinking at
the time. He was then made a scape-goat.
Either way, it's probably better than DNA evidence we seem to be so
reliant on.
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when
the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae
provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful
claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
This certainly impressed both the judge, the jury, presumably all present, along with subsequently, the Court of Appeal.
Thus the original trial judge Mr Justice Harrison]
quote:
"Although we do not convict people in these courts on statistics . the statistics in this case are compelling." After her conviction one juror
said: "Whatever you say about Sally Clark, you can't get around the 1
in 73 million figure." Clark's conviction was upheld on appeal.
:unquote
This error resulted from the simple multiplication rule of multiplying probabilities as if they were independent when fairly obviously
they weren't in this case
The cause/s of cot deaths are unknown. At a rough guess they may be genetic/environmental/or behavioural on the part of the parents.
None of which is any way deliberate.
So that the "actual" probability of a cot death is in reality the
probability of one or more of these factors affecting a family.
So the first cot death was an unavoidable tragedy.
After which the genetic factor will have been unchanged as may also
have been the environmental or behavioural factors which led to the
first death. So that given we don't actually know causes of cot
death the probability of a second cot death might be...
I'm sorry, but this is just so much "Common Sense", to me at least
quote:
In 2002, Ray Hill, professor of mathematics at the University of Salford, analysed other published data. He concluded that the probability of
having a second child die a cot death, given a first child had a
cot death, may be as high as 1 in 60.
In 2003, after spending three years in jail, Clark's second appeal
was upheld, and she was released from jail. This was only after a new
pro bono lawyer, while reviewing the evidence, discovered a pathology
report revealing that Harry was infected with staphylococcus aureus,
and that this fact had been hidden from her defense team.
Sally Clark died in 2007.
unquote:
So that she still wasn't released on the basis that she'd been jailed
on the basis of totally bogus probability claims; and AFAIAA anyway
no judges or paediatricians were admonished, or sent on remedial
courses in probability.
But released on the basis of the cause of death of the second baby;
and the fact that this evidence had somehow been "lost" presumably
by an under-resourced CPS
https://significancemagazine.com/statistics-in-court-incorrect-probabilities/
On 06/05/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the
hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
Yes, at the time it was believed that cot death was a independent event,
and not associated with genes or environment. That has since been
correctly ridiculed. However Roy Meadows simple repeated the thinking at
the time. He was then made a scape-goat.
Either way, it's probably better than DNA evidence we seem to be so
reliant on.
On 06/05/2024 17:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/05/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the >>>> meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator
when
the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent
formulae
provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in >>>> Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other
doubtful
claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at
the
hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
Yes, at the time it was believed that cot death was a independent
event, and not associated with genes or environment. That has since
been correctly ridiculed. However Roy Meadows simple repeated the
thinking at the time. He was then made a scape-goat.
No, it was not “believed” multiple family cot deaths were independent events. In science and to a lesser extent medicine, there needs to be evidence to support assertions. Independence would be a very strong assertion, not what we would naively expect. It would need very strong evidence.
Throughout the 1990s the NHS issued guidance to parents about how to
avoid cot death, this would be pointless if environment was irrelevant.
i.e. the NHS clearly did not believe cot death was independent of environment.
The only sense in which Meadow was a scapegoat is the expectation that a medical professional present a ballpark scientifically sound argument,
even when performing on the pantomime stage of a criminal trial.
Either way, it's probably better than DNA evidence we seem to be so
reliant on.
DNA evidence is astonishingly powerful, astonishingly precise. Misrepresentation by innumerate legal professionals is not to do with
the DNA evidence itself.
On Mon, 6 May 2024 11:52:58 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v1acqd$2h383$1@dont-email.me>:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the
hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
Rather than faulty applicatioon of mathematics as in that specific case,
I was thinking of doubtful claims being written into law - i.e. in the legislation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/2024-04-25 "Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024" is quite short.
====
1(2)(b) this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country.
====
Parliament has voted therefore it must be true!
I did not see anything in the act to say for how long Rwanda is
officially 'safe' for the purposes of UK law.
If there were to be a coup overnight in Rwanda that installed an
extremist group that believed that all people born outside Rwanda (or
any other criterion of your choice) were devils incarnate and to be
killed on sight, Rwanda would still be 'safe' according to UK law until
the Act could be repealed.
Does 1(3) which says what the government of Rwanda has agreed to do have
any meaningful effect on the rest of the act? I did not see anything
that says that any of the other provisions depend on performance by the government of Rwanda.
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when
the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae
provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful
claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
This certainly impressed both the judge, the jury, presumably all present, along with subsequently, the Court of Appeal.
Thus the original trial judge Mr Justice Harrison]
quote:
"Although we do not convict people in these courts on statistics . the statistics in this case are compelling." After her conviction one juror
said: "Whatever you say about Sally Clark, you can't get around the 1
in 73 million figure." Clark's conviction was upheld on appeal.
:unquote
This error resulted from the simple multiplication rule of multiplying probabilities as if they were independent when fairly obviously
they weren't in this case
The cause/s of cot deaths are unknown. At a rough guess they may be genetic/environmental/or behavioural on the part of the parents.
None of which is any way deliberate.
So that the "actual" probability of a cot death is in reality the
probability of one or more of these factors affecting a family.
So the first cot death was an unavoidable tragedy.
After which the genetic factor will have been unchanged as may also
have been the environmental or behavioural factors which led to the
first death. So that given we don't actually know causes of cot
death the probability of a second cot death might be...
I'm sorry, but this is just so much "Common Sense", to me at least
quote:
In 2002, Ray Hill, professor of mathematics at the University of Salford, analysed other published data. He concluded that the probability of
having a second child die a cot death, given a first child had a
cot death, may be as high as 1 in 60.
In 2003, after spending three years in jail, Clark's second appeal
was upheld, and she was released from jail. This was only after a new
pro bono lawyer, while reviewing the evidence, discovered a pathology
report revealing that Harry was infected with staphylococcus aureus,
and that this fact had been hidden from her defense team.
Sally Clark died in 2007.
unquote:
So that she still wasn't released on the basis that she'd been jailed
on the basis of totally bogus probability claims; and AFAIAA anyway
no judges or paediatricians were admonished, or sent on remedial
courses in probability.
But released on the basis of the cause of death of the second baby;
and the fact that this evidence had somehow been "lost" presumably
by an under-resourced CPS
https://significancemagazine.com/statistics-in-court-incorrect-probabilities/
bb
Shades of the shonky stats NASA used for safety around the Challenger disaster that Feynman saw through.
I think the crux of the issues was a 1/1000 chance x a 1/1000 chance is
*not* a 1/1000,000 chance.
On 06/05/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the
hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
Yes, at the time it was believed that cot death was a independent event,
and not associated with genes or environment. That has since been
correctly ridiculed. However Roy Meadows simple repeated the thinking at
the time. He was then made a scape-goat.
Either way, it's probably better than DNA evidence we seem to be so
reliant on.
On 06/05/2024 17:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/05/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the >>>> meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in >>>> Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the >>> hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
Yes, at the time it was believed that cot death was a independent event,
and not associated with genes or environment. That has since been
correctly ridiculed. However Roy Meadows simple repeated the thinking at
the time. He was then made a scape-goat.
No, it was not “believed” multiple family cot deaths were independent events. In science and to a lesser extent medicine, there needs to be evidence to support assertions. Independence would be a very strong assertion, not what we would naively expect. It would need very strong evidence.
Throughout the 1990s the NHS issued guidance to parents about how to
avoid cot death, this would be pointless if environment was irrelevant.
i.e. the NHS clearly did not believe cot death was independent of environment.
The only sense in which Meadow was a scapegoat is the expectation that a medical professional present a ballpark scientifically sound argument,
even when performing on the pantomime stage of a criminal trial.
Either way, it's probably better than DNA evidence we seem to be so
reliant on.
DNA evidence is astonishingly powerful, astonishingly precise. Misrepresentation by innumerate legal professionals is not to do with
the DNA evidence itself.
On 06/05/2024 17:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 06/05/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the >>>> meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in >>>> Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the >>> hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
Yes, at the time it was believed that cot death was a independent event,
and not associated with genes or environment. That has since been
correctly ridiculed. However Roy Meadows simple repeated the thinking at
the time. He was then made a scape-goat.
Either way, it's probably better than DNA evidence we seem to be so
reliant on.
I think most people forget that the jury was presented with a great deal
of evidence which pointed strongly to Sally Clark's guilt, and in all probability the jury did come to the correct decision.
I've posted separately about the ignorance that causes some people - not lawyers, usually - to blame Professor Roy Meadow.
On Mon, 6 May 2024 11:52:58 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v1acqd$2h383$1@dont-email.me>:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the >>hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two >>children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
Rather than faulty applicatioon of mathematics as in that specific case,
I was thinking of doubtful claims being written into law - i.e. in the legislation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/2024-04-25 "Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024" is quite short.
====
1(2)(b) this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country.
====
Parliament has voted therefore it must be true!
I did not see anything in the act to say for how long Rwanda is
officially 'safe' for the purposes of UK law.
If there were to be a coup overnight in Rwanda that installed an
extremist group that believed that all people born outside Rwanda (or
any other criterion of your choice) were devils incarnate and to be
killed on sight, Rwanda would still be 'safe' according to UK law until
the Act could be repealed.
Does 1(3) which says what the government of Rwanda has agreed to do have
any meaningful effect on the rest of the act? I did not see anything
that says that any of the other provisions depend on performance by the government of Rwanda.
On 06/05/2024 11:52, billy bookcase wrote:
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:krrf3jdgh5uk9q8v7lp6srf8ni9il5o3cj@4ax.com...
On Wed, 1 May 2024 08:35:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote in <v0srbs$31oj0$1@dont-email.me>:
However I'd imagine there must be some very good reason why
it seems everyone else instead chooses to use the (33/34)*100
form, despite the result being always identical. .
It is closer to the (33*100)/34 form which is easier to derive from the
meaning of "percent" - per hundred. The percentage is the numerator when >>> the value is expressed as a fraction with denominator 100.
If you start with a/b=n/100 and want the value of n the simple
transformation is to multiply both sides by 100: (a*100)/b=n.
Applying a little algebra you can get a lot of other equivalent formulae >>> provided that b is not zero.
Understanding mathematics can help to avoid the situation that arose in
Indiana in 1894 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill "the
Indiana State Legislature had laid itself open to ridicule".
Unfortunately, mathematics does not help to avoid writing other doubtful >>> claims into law.
It certainly didn't seem to help Sally Clark a solicitor. At least at the
hands of Sir Roy Meadow, a pediatrician. He 'correctly' asserted that
the probability of a random baby dying a cot death (SIDS) if the mother
is greater than 26 years old, affluent, and a nonsmoker, is 1 in 8,543
And therefore.... wait for it.....wait for it, the probability of two
children from such a family both having a cot death is......
(1 in 8,543) x (1 in 8,543) = 1 chance in 73 million.
To repeat 1 chance in 73 million
This certainly impressed both the judge, the jury, presumably all present, >> along with subsequently, the Court of Appeal.
Thus the original trial judge Mr Justice Harrison]
quote:
"Although we do not convict people in these courts on statistics . the
statistics in this case are compelling." After her conviction one juror
said: "Whatever you say about Sally Clark, you can't get around the 1
in 73 million figure." Clark's conviction was upheld on appeal.
:unquote
This error resulted from the simple multiplication rule of multiplying
probabilities as if they were independent when fairly obviously
they weren't in this case
The cause/s of cot deaths are unknown. At a rough guess they may be
genetic/environmental/or behavioural on the part of the parents.
None of which is any way deliberate.
So that the "actual" probability of a cot death is in reality the
probability of one or more of these factors affecting a family.
So the first cot death was an unavoidable tragedy.
After which the genetic factor will have been unchanged as may also
have been the environmental or behavioural factors which led to the
first death. So that given we don't actually know causes of cot
death the probability of a second cot death might be...
I'm sorry, but this is just so much "Common Sense", to me at least
quote:
In 2002, Ray Hill, professor of mathematics at the University of Salford,
analysed other published data. He concluded that the probability of
having a second child die a cot death, given a first child had a
cot death, may be as high as 1 in 60.
In 2003, after spending three years in jail, Clark's second appeal
was upheld, and she was released from jail. This was only after a new
pro bono lawyer, while reviewing the evidence, discovered a pathology
report revealing that Harry was infected with staphylococcus aureus,
and that this fact had been hidden from her defense team.
Sally Clark died in 2007.
unquote:
So that she still wasn't released on the basis that she'd been jailed
on the basis of totally bogus probability claims; and AFAIAA anyway
no judges or paediatricians were admonished, or sent on remedial
courses in probability.
But released on the basis of the cause of death of the second baby;
and the fact that this evidence had somehow been "lost" presumably
by an under-resourced CPS
https://significancemagazine.com/statistics-in-court-incorrect-probabilities/
Once again, the much misunderstood Sally Clark case emerges from its coffin to haunt
us.
Sally Clark has died, long ago. An alcoholic who died of alcohol poisoning.
It is, obviously, extremely unlikely that two cot deaths could occur in the same house,
in the presence of the mother
She was very lucky to be exonerated eventually because some vital autopsy evidence had
not been disclosed.
After all, objectively it was absolutely reasonable to find her guilty of murder or
manslaughter.
Always tempting for the ignorant press and the mathematicians with no understanding of
court procedure, to blame Professor Meadow, the paediatrician. He was not in court to
give statistical evidence but was encouraged by the barristers to give it. It was up to
the judge and the barristers to decide whether he should stray from his rightful area
of expertise, and if so whether to remind him and the jury of the well known "Prosecutor's Fallacy". The barristers blundered, and so did the judge. Professor
Meadow acted entirely properly.
And the first Court of Appeal assessed all the evidence and decided, rightly, that the
statistical evidence was a very minor factor in the jury's deliberations and did not
render the verdict unsafe.
Sally Clark is not a heroine or the victim of a monstrous miscarriage of justice.
Professor Meadow, on the other hand, was unjustly pilloried and bullied by the idiots
who were determined to portray Clark as an innocent bereaved mother and who believed
that So Called Experts were always intent on finding the parents guilty of injuring
their children. Actually, almost every week we see a parent convicted of battering
their child, on overwhelming evidence.
From one of the Court of Appeal judgments:
It was the prosecution case at trial that the appellant had murdered Christopher by
smothering. Until shortly before the trial, the case in relation to Harry was that he
had been murdered by shaking. For reasons that we will consider later, however, the
case at the trial itself was presented on the basis that Harry had been subjected to a
violent trauma to the spine, the mechanism of which was not clear, and had then been
the victim of suffocation which caused his death. It was alleged that neither death
could be considered SIDS because of the existence of recent and old injuries that had
been found in each case,
and there was no sufficient evidence as to how they had been caused. The circumstances
of both deaths shared similarities which would make it an affront to common sense to
conclude that either death was natural,
and it was beyond coincidence for history to so repeat itself. In summary, six main
similarities were relied upon: (1) the babies were about the same age at the time of
death, namely 11 weeks and 8 weeks; (2) they were each found by the appellant unconscious in the same room; (3) both were found at about the same time, shortly after
having been fed; (4) the appellant had been alone with each child when he was discovered lifeless; (5) in each case Mr Clark was either away or about to go away; (6)
in each case, according to the prosecution, there was evidence of previous abuse and of
deliberate injury recently inflicted.
A central issue on each count was whether the Crown could exclude death by natural
causes. The effect of the medical evidence as a whole was that neither baby was the
subject of a SIDS death and there was consensus, as the lowest common denominator, that
each death was unexplained and was consistent with an unnatural death. But the medical
evidence did not stand alone. In the circumstances the credibility of the parents'
evidence was crucial for the jury to consider. The absence of any explanation by the
appellant for the medical findings, and the inaccuracy of the husband's evidence on the
important matter of the time of his return home on the night of Harry's death, were
matters of great potential significance.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:04:44 |
| Calls: | 6,711 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,920 |
| Posted today: | 1 |