Sunday, September 29, 2013

Dialogue on Twitter with CTNHS

Dialogue on Twitter with CTNHS

I'm not the only one who has realised that CTNHS have frequently resorted to dirty tricks. Lately, some Cure members and supporters have moderated their tone in an apparent wakening to the effect of their prickly reaction to anyone who disagrees with anything they say (no matter how reasonably they make their point). 
Gabriel Scally was the recipient of CTNHS ire recently, with thuggish cheerleader Gary Walker in the forefront:


  1. 27 Sep
    Please provide the evidence that ever used the term "minister for murder"! Appalling abuse.
    Expand

  2. 27 Sep
    It was about the unpleasant campaign denigrating You're respected enough to change the whole tone
    Expand
  3. 27 Sep
    I apologise if you thought I was implying you personally hurled such abuse. A civilised debate is sorely needed.
    Expand
  4. 27 Sep
    Almost perfect but you still make your apology by accusing of misunderstanding you. It's not her fault at all.
    Expand

  5. 27 Sep
    Disappointing sophistry. If I've learnt one thing from N Ireland it is that anger & hurt must be transcended.
     Hide conversation
    6:36 PM - 27 Sep 13 · Details


    Image will appear as a link
  6. 27 Sep
    Just a simple apology for accusing someone of something they didn't do would suffice. Why so hard
    Expand
  7. 27 Sep
    "I apologise IF YOU didn't understand" is not an apology.Do Labour activists know the word sorry?
    Expand
  8. 27 Sep
    Gosh! But that's not what I wrote. I'm sorry for touching raw nerves. I do try not to.
    Expand


Gabriel is making a perfectly point and perfectly reasonable apology, but it's not enough for rottweiler Gary Walker. It speaks volumes that the epithet "Labour activist" is considered such an insult by him, and that he considers that anyone who disagrees with CTNHS must be a Labour activist. 
 Next Gabriel tries to find out from Julie Bailey (famous advocate for transparency):


  1. 17h
    I'm told that you supported abolition of National Patient Safety Agency. I thought that abolition was an error, was I wrong?
    Expand
  2. 4h
    . fascinated to see what JB's response will be
    Expand

  3. 3h
    It will be ignored John - you should know by now that the hard questions's are ignored.
    Expand

  4. 3h
    It's a reasonable question so I am sure will want to put the true position on the record.
    Expand
  5. 3h
    I'm very cautious of the people I talk with & I suggest u r too! Didn't realise u had asked a question, hav a look later
    Expand

  6. 3h
    I think the more open dialogue the better. Hopefully we can move on to the changes we need now to improve patient safety & care.
     Hide conversation
    10:37 AM - 29 Sep 13 · Details


    Image will appear as a link
  7. 2h
    . JB is very prone to ad hominem arguments and highly personal attacks on her opponents eg her campaign against Diana Smith
    Expand
  8. 31m
    CTNHS talk 2 any 1 about patient safety but we don't engage with those who been proven to hurt & have no empathy with victims


Of course there are some people with which it is impossible to have a civilized conversation, and if Julie Bailey refused to engage with people like that, that would be completely understandable. But the people she attacks are simply those that disagree with her. This blatant exclusion of her most effective opponents amounts to a complete avoidance of genuine dialogue and debate.

Gabriel Scally has already comment on JB's evasiveness:

20m
It would be very disappointing if someone who criticises secrecy and evasion wouldn't answer as simple a question.

Despite this being an apparently simple question to answer, JB's response so far has been:

  1. 18h
    I'm told that you supported abolition of National Patient Safety Agency. I thought that abolition was an error, was I wrong?
    Expand
  2. 38m
    Lets wait & see, did think what great help they were 2 staff/patients at MSFT! But irony is lost 4 those blinded by ideology
    Expand

  3. 32m
    So did you support the Goverment's abolition of the NPSA?


We await a straight answer.
Update: Julie Bailey has still not responded


10m
Seems I'm not going to get a straight answer from on whether she supported the abolition of National Safety Agency.

Further update:


  1. 57m
    I thought I'd answered but I sense ur another 1 of those labour activist with a nasty streak & dodgy mates & I'm too busy 4 u
    Expand

  2. 51m
    All I asked was whether or not you had supported the abolition of the NPSA. Surely all you need to say is 'Yes' or 'No'?

Julie Bailey, unwilling to answer a simple question about whether or not she supported the closure of the National Patient Safety Agency (I'm told that she actively lobbied for it):

  1. 12h
    Not surprised! Ask , I believe he knows?
     Hide conversation
    10:02 PM - 29 Sep 13 · Details
    Image will appear as a link
  2. 12h
    I asked once and she said she approved; in fact NPSA had obstructed some cases.
    Expand
  3. 12h
    I was genuinely aghast at this, as NPSA is a core part of the current medical 'core medical training'
    Expand
  4. 12h
    The main problem Hunt and campaigners have is that the Health and Social Care Act ABOLISHED NPSA.
    Expand
  5. 12h
    Approved of its abolition that is, Gabriel.
    Expand
  6. 9h
    I can't understand how supporting abolition of NPSA is compatible with caring about avoidable deaths in the



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)