Latest post of the previous page:
I would trust nothing the Telegraph - the Bill's 'media partner' - or Nutt or Saatchi says, but:Fury as Lib Dems kill off Saatchi Bill
INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
The Saatchi Bill
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Fury as Lib Dems kill off Saatchi Bill
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
That should now be the end of it. No MP moved the Bill today, so (as I understand it) it is dead.
What a fucking waste of nearly 12 months opposing this bloody awful nonsense, promoted as it was by PR, spin and hype by Tory supporter and backer Lord Maurice Saatchi.
However, we have another prick of a Tory MP pronouncing that he - if re-elected - bring it back from the dead. We will be ready for it.
Why, oh why, won't politicians listen to what people who know what they are talking about tell them? There are real obstacles to innovation but Saatchi's pet theory wasn't one of them. It never was. What an absolute fucking waste.
What a fucking waste of nearly 12 months opposing this bloody awful nonsense, promoted as it was by PR, spin and hype by Tory supporter and backer Lord Maurice Saatchi.
However, we have another prick of a Tory MP pronouncing that he - if re-elected - bring it back from the dead. We will be ready for it.
Why, oh why, won't politicians listen to what people who know what they are talking about tell them? There are real obstacles to innovation but Saatchi's pet theory wasn't one of them. It never was. What an absolute fucking waste.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
That's politics for yer.What an absolute fucking waste.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Watch the debate organised by HealthWatch UK:
The HealthWatch UK debate on the Medical Innovation Bill
You can see the top of my head in the audience...
The HealthWatch UK debate on the Medical Innovation Bill
You can see the top of my head in the audience...
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
We were at the QED Conference in Manchester this weekend and the Stop the Saatchi Bill campaign was shortlisted for the Skeptic Magazine's Ockham award in the Campaign/Event category.
We won!
This was truly a team effort - a team that consisted of several professors (medicine, science and law), several doctors, a QC, several lawyers, Nick Ross (the TV presenter), several bloggers and a few others! But even then, stopping the Saatchi Bill involved many others not part of our campaign directly - so we can't take all the credit! Others who campaigned against it included several of the medical Royal Colleges and in Parliament, some Lords and two MPs in particular: Dr Sarah Wollaston (Conservative MP for Totnes and a GP) and Dr Julian Huppert (Lib Dem MP for Cambridge and a scientist).
We now have two awards sitting side by side.
We won!
- Ockham Award.jpg (121 KiB) Viewed 4240 times
We now have two awards sitting side by side.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
On the subject of QED, they do an into video each year. Here was Saturday's one:
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Well done, those chaps, oh and chapesses of course!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Well done indeed, Alan. 
Does that include economists...?Why, oh why, won't politicians listen to what people who know what they are talking about tell them?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
No, unless they are politically biased and motivted economists. Not sure who is lower these days, politicians or journalists. Economists come a tad higher than journalists IMHO.Nick wrote:Well done indeed, Alan.
Does that include economists...?Why, oh why, won't politicians listen to what people who know what they are talking about tell them?
Only a tad mind you.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Saatchi Bill
What's this? Another Tory completely ignoring the evidence and relying on ill-informed dogma?
Yes, predictably, the Saatchi Bill is back. How else would the Tories repay him for getting them back into power without those pesky LibDems?
Maurice Saatchi’s Zombie Quack Bill To Be Rushed Through Parliament
Saatchi’s Bill could harm thousands
Saatchi's tag line and the title of his book is: 'Brutal simplicity of thought'. That, in just three (trade marked) words, shows up his inability to think.
I think the motto should instead be 'Brutally simplistic thoughtlessness'.
As HL Menken said (or rather usually paraphrased as):
Yes, predictably, the Saatchi Bill is back. How else would the Tories repay him for getting them back into power without those pesky LibDems?
Maurice Saatchi’s Zombie Quack Bill To Be Rushed Through Parliament
Saatchi’s Bill could harm thousands
Saatchi's tag line and the title of his book is: 'Brutal simplicity of thought'. That, in just three (trade marked) words, shows up his inability to think.
I think the motto should instead be 'Brutally simplistic thoughtlessness'.
As HL Menken said (or rather usually paraphrased as):
Saatchi is wrong. Very wrong.For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
That counts for nothing when you have friends who put vested interests before the needs of the mere common people!Saatchi is wrong. Very wrong.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Call to action!
Please spread this far and wide and encourage friends and relatives to think about writing to their MP - we've tried to make it as easy as possible.
Read the blog post and this fact sheet:
Please spread this far and wide and encourage friends and relatives to think about writing to their MP - we've tried to make it as easy as possible.
Read the blog post and this fact sheet:
- 2015-10-09_23h39_45.png (102.01 KiB) Viewed 4134 times
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Opposition is growing, but there's still time to contact your MP before tomorrow's second reading: Call to action!
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Bit late but message on way,
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Nor late at all!Dave B wrote:Bit late but message on way,
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Thought it said the reading was tomorrow (?)Alan H wrote:Nor late at all!Dave B wrote:Bit late but message on way,
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Did you send it by post? I assumed email.Dave B wrote:Thought it said the reading was tomorrow (?)Alan H wrote:Nor late at all!Dave B wrote:Bit late but message on way,
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Sent it via tye link-link. But if reading tomorrow what is the chance of him seeing my message before the vote? I will just be one of lots thst his staff may get round to sorting sometime.Alan H wrote:Did you send it by post? I assumed email.Dave B wrote:Thought it said the reading was tomorrow (?)Alan H wrote: Nor late at all!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: The Saatchi Bill
The second reading of Chris Heaton-Harris's version of the Saatchi Bill was today. The Bill passed 31 to 19. I'm pleased to say that our MP voted against it.
I was put today so only watching it now. I'm 90 minutes in with another two hours to go. I may have lost the will to live by the end.
However, the speeches by its supporters (so far, CHH himself and Philip Davies) are god-awful, mind-numbingly mind-numbing, ignorantly ignorant, stupefyingly stupid... They really have no grasp whatsoever on reality, never mind science, medicine and research and think they know more and better than all the medical Royal Colleges, the Academy of Medical Research Charities (which speaks for all the major research charities) and everyone else who oppose it. It is arrogant beyond arrogance. Their grasp of argumentation and logical fallacies is non-existent.
The two notable exceptions to this are Heidi Alexander, Shadow Health Secretary, and Dr Sarah Wollaston whose contributions are superb and knowledgeable.
Are all debates on legislation this mind-numbingly bad? If so, I fear for democracy than ever.
Perhaps we should have a version of Tam Dalyell's West Lothian Question: those with no science, medicine or research understanding should not be allowed to speak or vote on Bills such as this.
If you really want to, you can watch it here or read it here.
I was put today so only watching it now. I'm 90 minutes in with another two hours to go. I may have lost the will to live by the end.
However, the speeches by its supporters (so far, CHH himself and Philip Davies) are god-awful, mind-numbingly mind-numbing, ignorantly ignorant, stupefyingly stupid... They really have no grasp whatsoever on reality, never mind science, medicine and research and think they know more and better than all the medical Royal Colleges, the Academy of Medical Research Charities (which speaks for all the major research charities) and everyone else who oppose it. It is arrogant beyond arrogance. Their grasp of argumentation and logical fallacies is non-existent.
The two notable exceptions to this are Heidi Alexander, Shadow Health Secretary, and Dr Sarah Wollaston whose contributions are superb and knowledgeable.
Are all debates on legislation this mind-numbingly bad? If so, I fear for democracy than ever.
Perhaps we should have a version of Tam Dalyell's West Lothian Question: those with no science, medicine or research understanding should not be allowed to speak or vote on Bills such as this.
If you really want to, you can watch it here or read it here.
Last edited by Alan H on October 17th, 2015, 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited to give the permanent Hansard url.
Reason: Edited to give the permanent Hansard url.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The Saatchi Bill
Please drop a short email to your MP! Follow the money
We need you to email your MP again, this time asking him/her to turn up for the Money Resolution on Tuesday and ask the Bill’s supporters why they want to waste precious public money on a database that will not and cannot produce any innovation and why they want to increase NHS litigation costs.
We only have 24 hours to do this so please do it now: we need to make sure that the Money Resolution is defeated on Tuesday, ensuring that public money is not available to fund this dangerous and unnecessary Bill.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?