Vaccine taskforce head Kate Bingham shared UK plans with private firms

[JohnD]

That would be an impossible guess for me to know

But you claimed to know that it was published in my "favourite rag." So you previously credited yourself with the ability to guess what it is.

Are you now admitting that you do not have that ability?

Why do you feel impelled to post nonsense that is not true?

 

[motorbiking]

JohnD may be confessing to have unlawful access to copyright protected material either that or he has access via a subscription? making him a subscriber in their eyes at least.

Sir G posted an article which implied that the subject was revealing secrets to help her buddies make good investments. Further implying she got her job as a jobs for the boys (and girls) favour. Clearly she is a leader in the industry (30 years), clearly she is well qualified (top degree from a top university in a highly relevant subject), clearly she disclosed nothing that was unauthorised (followed protocol), clearly there is nothing to defend.

If not, what does she need to account for or defend?

I'm guessing this thread was posted without the full facts, so its been useful to present all sides at least.

 

[JohnD]

subscription to the FT

see here.

https://www.ft.com/coronavirusfree

There are various offers from time to time.

 

[Trazor]

You post and quote links from the FT that require a subscription.

You would need a subscription to know the content you posted.

Do you want to deny that is true

Any answer yet John ?

 

[SirGalahad]

It means nothing of the sort - it may mean she shared opinion as well as fact and information publicly available. If she followed the protocol for getting her presentation approved, I really can't see what she did wrong.

If it was already publicly available information - why then did it need to be pre-approved? Please point out where this information was available before the 21st October.

 

[JohnD]

No, you have not answered any of my questions.

Why do you feel impelled to post nonsense that is not true?

 

[fillyboy]

Great work Galahad.

 

[motorbiking]

If it was already publicly available information - why then did it need to be pre-approved? Please point out where this information was available before the 21st October.

what does she need to account for or defend?

 

[Trazor]

Why do you feel impelled to post nonsense that is not true?

That is your disingenuous interpretation of my post, twist and turn John, twist and turn.

 

[JohnD]

nonsense.

you have repeatedly posted things that are not true.

Why do you feel impelled to do it?

 

[SirGalahad]

Great work Galahad.

Please list where this info was publicly available before 21st.

Toddle off now.

 

[SirGalahad]

clearly she disclosed nothing that was unauthorised (followed protocol), clearly there is nothing to defend.

If not, what does she need to account for or defend?

I'm guessing this thread was posted without the full facts, so its been useful to present all sides at least.

it may mean she shared opinion as well as fact and information publicly available.

If this data was already in the public domain - please point out where it is available.

 

[EddieM]

That is not true.

Well this is what I get if I try to read the article.

 

[Trazor]

Why do you feel impelled to do it?

You are the master JohnD, I have learnt much.

 

[JohnD]

Well this is what I get if I try to read the article.

View attachment 210090

So do I, because I am not a subscriber to The Times.

Did you make the mistake of believing someone who falsely claimed that I am?

Like I said

It is not true.