he is a complete tit

And hippies.

He is a proper Dick.
Her political views are her own, nothing to do with him.
I don’t particularly agree with her stance on Covid, but she doesn’t stand alone on it.:shrug:

SAGE have been the single biggest influence of government policy over the last 15 months so I don't see why their members political views should be immune from scrutiny, not sure the same courtesy would be extended if a SAGE member was part of a hard right movement

FYI the Communist Party of Britain subscribes to Marxist-Leninism, the ideology that Stalin was the father of and which led Soviet policy for most of the USSRs existence

Not about being immune from scrutiny, it’s about “gotcha” entrapment arguments and their place in a professional interview or half decent debate.

That being; They have no place. She was right to ignore the aggressive demand-based questioning.

He asked if her political views have any bearing on how comfortable she is with increased state powers given that Communist countries are renowned for placing great restrictions on their citizens

It's a pretty relevant question imo, she declined to answer twice and he said 'that's a perfectly fair answer and thank you for that', hardly aggressive interviewing

He can be annoying.

I also agree, it wasn't an appropriate question in my view.
She wasn't on talking about elections or anything it was about the virus.

I don't know of any other scientists or even other so called experts who have been questioned on their political stance when talking about the virus.

….she was giving a view that aligned with many other SAGE views, so the question had no relevance at all other than to try to be sensationalist in some way and to ‘create a moment’ and it was clumsy…..if she had just given him some kind of extreme views that didn’t align with her colleagues then the question would have been valid but it wasn’t and she effortlessly made him look a bit silly for asking it…it just feels like another ‘quest for outrage’ rather than seeking informative facts from a guest on the show….and over something as important as people’s lives ….he wouldn’t have backed off with his ‘fair answer’ had he had any type of point but he really didn’t, based on what she was saying and what she was saying showed her in the process of displaying to him that her policy had no bearing on her job credentials….


….what a silly man he it’s and his silliness does seem to be impacting his work, though, in contrast….

i have no idea who she is, ive never heard her in the past, but i think we should be clear on what sage's roll is

Sage typically is made up of over 80 participants, it provides a broad spectrum of scientific advice to government. It doesn't make any decisions.


1 voice in over 80 just means nothing, lets have some perspective into what part she actually plays in the proceedings

I don't think there is any outrage but it is of public interest what politics these people follow, almost like a conflict of interest form that everyone has to fill out at work?

I didn't see the relevance of his question to her considering she was on to talk about the virus.

He may well along with others see the Communist party as unsavoury as I myself do as to politics.
However individual or professional views on other subjects have no bearing on that.

Plus too, the Communist party is NOT an illegal institution in the UK.

So should all experts, professionals, scientists and advisors now be asked which Party they are members of too.

No of course they shouldn't be asked that in my view..

…to give him credit, Joey…?…I do feel that maybe he did quickly realise how misjudged and clumsy it all was, which is why he so readily retreated with his ‘fair answer’….

Just to point out, that Britain tried herd immunity first - made clear by Boris' speech in February, and confirmed by Cummings. That was not sage. Then late lockdowns, the Christmas back and forth were all Johnson working against advice, and not sage who were consistently recommending earlier lockdowns.

The government has always tried to do anything and everything else before taking the appropriate advice. Eat out to help out and taking schools to court and forcing them to open were nothing to do with sage.

Oh I get that definitely Ammi.
It was the right thing to do too.

However he isn't a novice presenter and interviewer.
He has years of vast experience.

For me, it more demonstrated he can't detach his personal prejudices from the professional expectation of himself which there should be.

She is ridiculous and idiotic.
Good job on him for calling her out

Never knew much about him but seeing him call out Dr Hilary for ridiculous claims such as “we have freedom already” (meanwhile kids aren’t at school, uni students have yet to even attend a lecture in person or meet people outside their living arrangements and people are not even able to work from home or attend any events” is ridiculous.

and now this, he seems like a great guy speaking truths :clap1:

It was actually, in fact I don't think Boris himself has ever used the term herd immunity but Vallance specifically talked about the need to build it up in February. SAGEs advice was certainly one of the biggest reasons behind how long it took us to lock down - they were still sceptical of implementing a full lockdown well into mid March

You don't need to say the words "herd immunity" to be promoting it.

Here is his speech in February before it took hold, talking about us being the country brave enough to stay open. There was only ever one way that could happen - herd immunity.



https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...-says-12029956

Coronavirus: SAGE urged government to lockdown a week earlier, UK's chief scientific adviser says (regarding the initial march LD)

Here he is again, clearly talking about the strategy of herd immunity, without saying the exact phrase.



Dominic Cummings tells committee he heard PM say 'let the bodies pile high' after ordering second lockdown

https://news.sky.com/story/dominic-c...-high-12317584

This is who has been making the decisions, and I saw a James O'Brien clip from earlier today and he made a good point; If Hancock was still in charge, do you think we'd be rushing headlong into doing scrapping all protections in July, in the same as we are under Libertarian Ayn Rand acolyte, Sajid? Because I don't.

Hancock would definitely have a more measured approach to re-opening fully, and this for me, absolutely demonstrates it's about the personal approaches of individuals versus any kind of clear strategy being governed by science.

The government have ignored things for as long as they could get away with it, and there would definitely be more clarity in objectivity if a different party was in office and handled this pandemic making the exact same decisions.

Before we worry about the extreme politics of one member of sage, tories were busy seriously restricting right to protest the other night with their actual authoritarianism, and are pushing through draconian asylum and police laws, and are trying to disenfranchise voters of colour with an voter ID policy that would impress the republicans across the pond.

Just to add - communism is an extremely broad church. I think there is actually some validity in asking her about it, but a question asking her for her definition, the way Farage just gets to talk in vague terms about immigrants, or Tommy gets to solely talk about his opposition to Muslim pedophiles.

I don't have an issue with questions to find out what people believe, but the use of Stalin and Russia as boogeymen, when Stalin's horrendous regime was a mix of communism, theocracy, and flat out magical thinking. It's not really a coincidence that he was brought up through the church.