The peado finder general appointment
Discussion
A second vote for Optimus Prime here:
- Non-biological
- Will be able to deliver lethal force to the 'philes
- No affiliation to any country.
Failing the BV73 (BV's younger, more dynamic version. Some say, it's him with a wig - who knows)
- Non-biological
- Will be able to deliver lethal force to the 'philes
- No affiliation to any country.
Failing the BV73 (BV's younger, more dynamic version. Some say, it's him with a wig - who knows)
Edited by Atmospheric on Thursday 23 October 17:20
Atmospheric said:
Failing the BV73 (BV's younger, more dynamic version. Some say, it's him with a wig - who knows)
Some say he in fact used to be BV73:http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Half way down...
Vaud said:
Atmospheric said:
Failing the BV73 (BV's younger, more dynamic version. Some say, it's him with a wig - who knows)
Some say he in fact used to be BV73:http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Half way down...
In the real world jobs would be advertised, there would be multiple applicants and the post holder would be selected via a tests and interviews.
I hope she's not being put upon like Vicky Pryce and the speeding points.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dona...
So there's no doubt the Home Sec got it hopelessly wrong again. I wonder could it be that those in government just don't know anybody other than those in, or have been in, or close to, government? Whatever she is, she ain't stupid.
It's odd that both of the candidates have been women and a prominent mooted replacement is a woman (Chakrabarti). It's not doing any favours for the stated preference for positive discrimination in other selection processes.
It's odd that both of the candidates have been women and a prominent mooted replacement is a woman (Chakrabarti). It's not doing any favours for the stated preference for positive discrimination in other selection processes.
Edited by Thorodin on Friday 24th October 12:02
Thorodin said:
So there's no doubt the Home Sec got it hopelessly wrong again. I wonder could it be that those in government just don't know anybody other than those in, or have been in, or close to, government? Whatever she is, she ain't stupid.
They cant see past there own types can they?Edited by Thorodin on Friday 24th October 12:02
Randy Winkman said:
They cant see past there own types can they?
I think one of the problems is that once you have built up enough experience to carry out this kind of role, then it becomes inevitable that over your career you will have interacted with - and been to many functions with people who are politicians or who then become politicians.It's hard to avoid.
Vaud said:
Randy Winkman said:
They cant see past there own types can they?
I think one of the problems is that once you have built up enough experience to carry out this kind of role, then it becomes inevitable that over your career you will have interacted with - and been to many functions with people who are politicians or who then become politicians.It's hard to avoid.
Vaud said:
I think one of the problems is that once you have built up enough experience to carry out this kind of role, then it becomes inevitable that over your career you will have interacted with - and been to many functions with people who are politicians or who then become politicians.
It's hard to avoid.
I'm not really sure that a forensically legal brain is the core requirement for the duties of the 'chair'. Isn't that what the wingers are for? To advise the chair of legal complexities and possible elephant traps and obfuscation? As in magistrates? Surely the 'chair' is to ensure the parameters of the inquiry are followed and that matters are kept relevant? Or can't the wingers be trusted either? All Select Committees are run this way having members with very diverse, and sometimes 'dark arts', qualifications. Seems to me only those who can be relied upon to toe the line are considered, while assuming the porridgey masses can't see past it.It's hard to avoid.
Thorodin said:
I'm not really sure that a forensically legal brain is the core requirement for the duties of the 'chair'. Isn't that what the wingers are for? To advise the chair of legal complexities and possible elephant traps and obfuscation? As in magistrates? Surely the 'chair' is to ensure the parameters of the inquiry are followed and that matters are kept relevant? Or can't the wingers be trusted either? All Select Committees are run this way having members with very diverse, and sometimes 'dark arts', qualifications. Seems to me only those who can be relied upon to toe the line are considered, while assuming the porridgey masses can't see past it.
Where did I mention a forensically legal brain?You didn't. I did. In response to commonly held belief that what is needed is a judge (establishment), QC (establishment only need apply), or lackey (establishment). After many years as chair on varied jobs, many of which I barely understood the 'nuts 'n bolts', I was able with the help of wingers to cut through the waffle and general dodginess of would-be con men to get to the gritty. Can't see why there can't be a similar approach here. Vaz's committee lets an awful lot of pot shots through that any casual observer could spot a mile off. In the total absence of credible and suitably cynical Trades Union leaders these days the target pool is dry.
Yes, I agree. But horses for courses. He/she would be more likely to dig for the truth in this case than the miserable lot we have seen in recent years (McPhearson, Levenson et al). The point is you have someone who has no reason to fear the establishment and whose career is unlikely to be affected if they have a mind of their own. There used to be such people not so long ago, now, sadly far fewer. Then, when Trade Union voting (say) irregularities ocur, someone impeccable from 'the other side' could officiate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff