O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[ramAnag]

You're always going to lose the Norton/Patel argument rA just based on economics. Lets say, for the sake of argument (and because, subjectively, its true) that they are both **** at their jobs, and for that matter would be **** at each others jobs. Both are paid for by you and I so should expect flak, lets forget that Norton can retaliate and Patel can't. The big difference is that the unfunny Norton is paid over TEN TIMES/£720,000pa more than the unpretty Preti does. That would pay for a lot of nurses (or to quote Jamie MacDonald, one enormous robotic one)

But the argument was never an economic one, Andy. The argument - which Ram59 started and you jumped in on - was about whether celebrities or those in the public eye have the right to offer judgements.
In my opinion, so long as they aren’t making a living as political commentators or news deliverers, I can’t see the difference between a minor celebrity offering an opinion or you and I doing the same thing.
You’ve yet to explain what you meant by the phrase ‘no actual value add’ or, apart from the fact that he’s much more well known, what the difference is between Norton passing comment on the Home Secretary and you or I doing so, or commenting on Rooney’s managerial ability or indeed the Education Secretary’s performance in recent weeks.

P.S. If you think Rooney is bad on the ‘er’ count you should have heard Williamson’s explanation to the Select Committee this morning.
I just lost count.

[Ram59]

So from arguments I'm hearing, everyone that's successful on tv, it's because they work hard and are talented, what a load of rubbish. Our lives present and past are full of singers, actors and celebrities who have very little talent and have had to work not very hard for their money and fame. What they have had in common, is good fortune. Meanwhile there are thousands of others who have much more talent and work much harder, but with little reward, without that good fortune.

By Swales thinking, Gemma Collins is always in demand and so she must be talented, I must be missing something.

Many singers, actors and celebrities are exceptionally talented and work very hard for themselves and others, these have my full admiration. Some get their fame because of a gimmick, ie; being camp, where would Norton be if he didn't play the camp card?

[Andy_Faber]

But the argument was never an economic one, Andy. The argument - which Ram59 started and you jumped in on - was about whether celebrities or those in the public eye have the right to offer judgements.
In my opinion, so long as they aren’t making a living as political commentators or news deliverers, I can’t see the difference between a minor celebrity offering an opinion or you and I doing the same thing.
You’ve yet to explain what you meant by the phrase ‘no actual value add’ or, apart from the fact that he’s much more well known, what the difference is between Norton passing comment on the Home Secretary and you or I doing so, or commenting on Rooney’s managerial ability or indeed the Education Secretary’s performance in recent weeks.

P.S. If you think Rooney is bad on the ‘er’ count you should have heard Williamson’s explanation to the Select Committee this morning.
I just lost count.

Poor chap’s not doing well on the elocution front, you knocking his ers and me hammering him for his wivs and visses

[Geoff Parkstone]

"I can’t see the difference between a minor celebrity offering an opinion or you and I doing the same thing."

I think the difference is that the licence fee payer is not paying you or Andy to provide an opinion.

However minor celebrities etc do not need to use the TV platform to put across their opinions, as there are plenty of social media outlets for it, so it probably doesnt matter much. besides I dont see Norton being much of an influencer.

As the great Neil Young wrote (nicked from Rolling Stone this month) “Social media, at the hands of powerful people — influencers, amplifying lies, and untruths — is crippling our belief system, turning us against one another,........We are not enemies. We must find a way home.”

Nothing more to add to that

[ramAnag]

"I can’t see the difference between a minor celebrity offering an opinion or you and I doing the same thing."

I think the difference is that the licence fee payer is not paying you or Andy to provide an opinion.

However minor celebrities etc do not need to use the TV platform to put across their opinions, as there are plenty of social media outlets for it, so it probably doesnt matter much. besides I dont see Norton being much of an influencer.

As the great Neil Young wrote (nicked from Rolling Stone this month) “Social media, at the hands of powerful people — influencers, amplifying lies, and untruths — is crippling our belief system, turning us against one another,........We are not enemies. We must find a way home.”

Nothing more to add to that

In which case, are all public sector employees to be restricted in their ability to put forward their opinions?
Fine lines, GP...in my former incarnation as a teacher I understand that I should not have made political statements, however at the time of the AIDS epidemic I certainly made what I would describe as ‘humanitarian’ comments in S ex Ed. lessons, and the morning after 9/11 I gave a whole school assembly which anticipated the likely division to follow and was at pains to subtly explain that this terrorist behaviour was not indicative of Muslim beliefs and should not be used as an excuse to target the Asian kids in the school.
Was that wrong too?

We find common ground on the ‘great’ Neil Young...and I also totally agree with the sentiment you’ve quoted.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I tend to think that those paid by the state should exercise extreme caution in making public political statements. You cannot however compare perjorative comments against an individual made in a public forum before (I guess) millions of viewers, to you speaking in advisory tones to a school assembly of maybe 500 kids maximum??

I'd say you exercised sound judgement in your role as described, and in a professional manner, dealing with facts and not opinion. Quite a different matter to Norton

[swaledale]

"I can’t see the difference between a minor celebrity offering an opinion or you and I doing the same thing."

I think the difference is that the licence fee payer is not paying you or Andy to provide an opinion.

However minor celebrities etc do not need to use the TV platform to put across their opinions, as there are plenty of social media outlets for it, so it probably doesnt matter much. besides I dont see Norton being much of an influencer.

As the great Neil Young wrote (nicked from Rolling Stone this month) “Social media, at the hands of powerful people — influencers, amplifying lies, and untruths — is crippling our belief system, turning us against one another,........We are not enemies. We must find a way home.”

Nothing more to add to that

Actually Norton isn't a public servant, he is only partially paid by the licence fee payer, he works across various media so your assertion doesn't stand up. he said it in an interview and is as entitled to have an opinion as anyone else.

[swaledale]

One of the big (in terms of cost and ineffectvieness) issues is the disastrous privatisation and outsourcing of our test-and-trace system.

This is the crucial issue. Without an effective test, trace, isolate and support system, the country will be stuck in the cycle of infection indefinitely. But if you get the system right, you free the nation from both uncontrolled disease and lockdowns. This is the lesson from Taiwan, a country with twice our population density, that has lost just seven people to Covid-19 without ever locking down. It developed its system with the help of participatory democracy, ensuring there was a high level of public consent and engagement; put professionals in charge at every stage; and provides generous support and daily contact for people who have had to isolate.

By contrast, our system has been a fiasco. England’s system has so far cost £22bn. For all the good it has done, this money might as well have been stacked and burned. The government put incompetent cronies in charge, and handed key tasks to corporations with a terrible track record of delivery. As revealed in October, ****age call-centre workers on the minimum wage were given crucial tracing jobs that had previously been reserved for health professionals.

[ramAnag]

So from arguments I'm hearing, everyone that's successful on tv, it's because they work hard and are talented, what a load of rubbish. Our lives present and past are full of singers, actors and celebrities who have very little talent and have had to work not very hard for their money and fame. What they have had in common, is good fortune. Meanwhile there are thousands of others who have much more talent and work much harder, but with little reward, without that good fortune.

By Swales thinking, Gemma Collins is always in demand and so she must be talented, I must be missing something.

Many singers, actors and celebrities are exceptionally talented and work very hard for themselves and others, these have my full admiration. Some get their fame because of a gimmick, ie; being camp, where would Norton be if he didn't play the camp card?

None of which gets near to answering the question of whether or not he should be allowed to offer his opinion on the performance of the Home Secretary.

You don’t like him, fair enough. You think he’s paid too much, I agree but he’s far from the only one. You think he overplays the ‘camp’/gay card, again I’m inclined to agree. You believe lots of untalented individuals don’t deserve the rewards they receive. I’m with you on that one too.

But...should he be prohibited from making a comment on the way the country is being run because he receives some of his income from the tax payer? Of course he shouldn’t. If you don’t like what he says...ignore him or argue against it but not his right to express his opinion.

P.S. Who’s Gemma Collins?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I think she invented a gin based cocktail?