Printable View
I saw it mentioned earlier in this thread by people whose relatives had worked with Calderwood that she “doesn’t suffer fools”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
In order to “not suffer fools” you generally have to hold yourself to a very high standard of behaviour in order to avoid being accused of hypocrisy and undermined.
Not sure how you measure her work but almost any measure of it will have been undermined by this action.
She wouldn't be sacked as a medic though, she'd be sacked as CMO. Her current role as CMO Is, ultimately, to provide the advice which will guide the nation through this pandemic and she's proven to be unsuitable for that role.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
She has a Deputy who could step up.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.H.F.C
You’re still discarding a hell of a lot of knowledge though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
It’s fine saying she has a deputy but you don’t know how capable that deputy is.
If you’re happy sacking good people....Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Is a simple solution not to promote her deputy and allow them to be the new face/talking head at the press briefings whilst keeping Calderwood on in an 'advisory role' behind the scenes?
Allows for continuity, officially revokes her position but her expertise isn't lost. Reminds me of the scene in The Thick of It when Tucker is talking about how a good resignation is possible. Act quickly, do your time and you can come back relatively quickly and no one remembers your misdemeanour.
Is a good person still a good person when their credibility is undermined in this way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
There will be other good people whose credibility remains unblemished.
Mountain out of a molehill.
The public are being asked to stay indoors because they cant wash their bloody hands, and when in panic mode buy toilet roll.
Cooped up in a car for an hour, staying at her own property, practising social distancing.
The CMO will have more risky contact during the course of a working week.
There are many more people going out for more than an hours excericse (walking/cycling) who will come into more contact than she and her family did.
Setting a good example? no. But then some people would want 24/7 tv coverage of them to see for themselves what a good example is. Then they'd still question it.
Cabin fever has well and truly set in.
I'd go as far to calling Sturgeons credibility into account if the CMO is not, at the very least, demoted from her role.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir David Gray
Thankfully, I'm 99% sure she is smart and strong enough to realise this.
CMO position is completely untenable, it's almost beyond debate really.
I'll be surprised if she doesn't step down this afternoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir David Gray
Exactly this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
If she really is good at her job, keep her behind the scenes (I wouldn't even let this be known publically) and promote her deputy.
The idea of he standing on the podium telling people what they should do now is beyond laughable
'Many more people' don't work as the nation's chief medical officer, for whom setting a good example is at the heart of her role. As others have said she could have sent a family member or asked a neighbour to check on the property. Instead the whole family made the trip. The double standards at play make her a legitimate target for the highest criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
I would have thought so. It doesn't deal with the NHS morale side of this, but I'm no expert on how NHS staff may feel about her actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
Press conference coming up now on BBc1 Scotland
I'm not sure what you mean by "good people" here Bill. What specific part of her job as CMO do you think she can continue to do well in the current circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Quote:
Originally Posted by G B Young
There's no guidelines or advice that say family groups cant leave the house together.
Without knowing both sides of the story its impossible to say if a family member could have travelled alone, or if a neighbour could check on the property.
Its all guesswork.
Except for what the Sun dug out for us. And we know they're full of ****.
Yes there are. You can only leave for essential travel. This, clearly, was not an essential trip. It's quite simple, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Kept her job by look of it.
Third.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
There are a fair number of second homes around me and almost all are occupied, a major national building /civil engineering company director is one and there are 3 cars there. Another is a £650 k holiday home used about 2 weeks every year, now occupied by the owners who live and work in Hong Kong.
Provided that they follow the guidelines on social distancing I don't see a problem.
3706 positive cases, 361 up on yesterday.
197 in intensive care. Up 5.
1590 in hospital, up 110.
2 reported deaths. 220 in total. Clarified the figure is not true to reality though.
Calderwood's there.
In your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Marvin
People from the same family can leave the house together. Exercise for example.
Travel to another location to check on the security of a property? most people would see security as essential if it hadn't been done recently.
Taking the family out for an overnight stay at the property? mistake, probably (without knowing all the facts). sackable? definitely not.
Calderwood confirms she was also at the holiday home last weekend also. That's a disgrace to be honest.
Confirmed it is not the first time she has done it. Papers have clearly been tipped off about that fact.
So she was away last weekend as well. Idiot.
Confirmed she was also at the home last weekend too.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
This is an absolute shocker. Unfortunately, this has put undue massive pressure on this administration and I for one am unhappy the First Minister has not taken this seriously enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
Its actually unbelievable
Car crash.
Hang her at dawn. Stone her in the streets.
That Journo can throw the first stone.
Whether there was increased risk or otherwise is irrelevant. It's the mixed messages. No non essential travel, don't go on days out to beaches etc etc. We then have a situation in which the defence is she 'complied with social distancing' and Jason Leitch suggesting she was safer at her holiday home. No **** Sherlock. The point is everyone else has been asked, by the same people, not to use holiday homes and rural areas as isolation. It's unfair on those communities and the pressure it potentially places on their services. Hypocrisy in all it's glory and at it's very worst.
It's a total **** show. Stating that you can't justify it. Then immediately throwing in little bits of mitigation and a colleague stating there was no endangerment to yourself or others is justification by another name.