13 comments on “Suppose so really

  1. “Mrs O’Brien added: “Chelsey disagreed and contested with the occupational health report. I said I would speak to her GP to get a second opinion.””

    It’s like that old joke, isn’t it?

  2. The girl seems to have been mentally ill and was the first–if the paper is to be believed–to bring up talk of suicide.

    What “perfectionism” means in this context and what it has to do with anything is entirely unclear. Was it introduced (or left in and given a small shade of emphasis ) to suggest a larger dimension? A vague but –so the journo-hacks hope–agitating sense of unease?

    Modern British journalism on the job.

  3. I dunno Julia, the more I read and hear about the medical profession, I use the term loosely to include therapists, the more I’m likely to heed the words of a doctor I heard recently: If you’ve got time get a second opinion and if they disagree get a 3rd opinion. The more drastic the diagnosis and its consequences the more important it is to follow this advice.

  4. We’ll never get the full story from El Tel, but it does seem that telling someone suffering from mental illness that she is emotionally immature* is heavy-handed at best. You don’t tell someone with a broken leg to man the fuck up and get running.

    I don’t understand why someone having suicidal thoughts was seeing an occupational therapist. Is that really what is required?

    *Maybe she was, does that prevent one from being a primary school teacher? She seemed to be grown-up enough to hold down a marriage and a sideline business.

    I am of course prejudiced because she was young and pretty, because I don’t trust the medical profession or the state.

  5. If emotional immaturity’s to be amongst the criteria for being unemployable, who’s going to be writing the Telegraph in the future? Or governing the country, for that matter?

  6. Tim

    Have you seen the debate between the great Tuber and Laffer which apparently took place last night. Of course he won ‘hands down:’ All standard fare but worth a look

    ‘The gains from regulating tax competition are based on the fact that doing so:

    Means that markets that can more effectively allocate capital to those best able to use it to meet end users need. Effective markets are, therefore, reinforced and most believe that this is a proper basis for organising large parts of most economies;
    The rule of law is upheld, with the example set reinforcing behaviour throughout society both nationally and internationally, which is why this issue has come to have such significance when much of the abuse from tax competition that has been witnessed has been by those in the public eye;
    The ability of states to deliver services to those who need them is maintained – and for the avoidance of doubt, we all need the services of states;
    Market failure – including in the mispricing of externalities – is prevented;
    Income and wealth can be redistributed, which we know leads to better societies;
    Fiscal policy becomes an option for governments, which is vital when zero rates are going to stay at or near the zero bound;
    The value of local currencies – which are always supported by the requirement that taxes be paid in them – are upheld;
    Democracy is supported.’

    And apparently his influence has moved from A semi in Ely to the World stage:

    ‘And we are doing is for good reason. It was in February this year that the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD all jointly committed to tackle tax spillovers. That can only be because they all perceive the threat of tax competition. We believe that a framework of the type we are creating can address this issue when as yet there is no system in place for doing so.

    It is my belief that if we increased the ambition of governments who do believe in democracy, the rule of law, effective markets and the rights of the states that they govern then we could create and deliver these tax spillover assessments that would truly reveal where the threats to international taxation stability really are.
    And it is my belief that this would transform the stability of the world markets; focus international business on their true goal of meeting customer need to generate long-term sustainable profit for the benefit of all in society, including their owners; and it would generate the secure basis of financing that so many countries, particularly in the developing world are in desperate need of.
    That is why the cost of beating tax competition is worth paying.’

    Vintage stuff!!!

  7. Tim

    Additionally he is setting up new rules for global accounting standards:

    ‘First, the issue he notes is only an example of the criticism I and others have made of the IFRS Foundation and its accounting standards. Our concerns are much more fundamental than he represents and he should know it. If he does not then he is even worse at his job than I thought. These criticisms actually focus on the fact that IFRS do not produce information of use to anyone. That’s because they do not tell investors whether or not the returns that they supposedly enjoy are actually payable by the companies in question, or are in fact fraudulent, as has too often been the case. Nor do they indicate the company’s resilience, and for the long-term investor that is critical.’

    He has also predicted a Market crash for the 98th time since 2012, as well as advocating more Trade Union Members – plenty of gems and its only 12pm!!

  8. @van patten. Laughable isn’t it. an economist who has advised US presidents and writes for prestigious US newspapers versus someone who advises the porridge wogs and blogs and has a fake professorship. I suspect the audience were confused as to what the potato was trying to say.
    And what does he mean by the “gramscian moment” ? That doesn’t make sense.

  9. You would think that at some point his calling IFRS fraudulent would get him a chat from his professional accounting body

  10. @ BniC
    He doesn’t quite call IFRS fraudulent.
    He does, however, say that the auditors fail to detect fraud.

  11. I doubt the letter was from an Occupational therapist (OT). The article mentions in the next line Occupational health (OH). OH is not the same thing at OT.

    My guess is firstly the article is written by someone with no understanding of either OT or OH and second she was referred to OH for her suicidal ideation/low mood and they were very unhelpful

  12. “Recording a narrative verdict, Mrs Slater said she could not record a conclusion of suicide as the evidence she had heard did not prove Chelsey had intended to take her own life.”

    um. We’re told Chelsey was found dead by husband. That’s the extent of the reporting. How or what did she die of? What did the autopsy say? Is that not included in the narrative verdict?
    Is accident a possibility? None of this should be speculation in my mind if the coroner’s gone through it and reached a “narrative verdict”.
    Either it’s a failing of A) my understanding B) The coroner’s fudging C) reporter’s reporting.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.