Breaking News.

[anneasquith]

Pauline cafferkey admitted to hospital again :-(

[Mamyalynne]

Thanks Douglas, so that's not an option - but it seems it wasn't really a question anyway so never mind.

[douglas9401]

You're most welcome.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - //Whenever Pauline Cafferkey, is up for discussion, it is not unusual for her selfish and dangerous actions to be brought into the conversation.

Because of those actions, we could be discussing more than just one persons particular illnesses derived from this dreadful lethal disease. //

I refer you to my post at 14:00 - Ms Cafferkey was judged not to have behaved in a selfish and / or irresponsible manner by her disciplinary hearing - have you had another hearing all on your own since?

[murraymints]

andy..does not mean that the general public at large ..and risk..agree with that outcome....

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //I don't remember the disciplinary hearing saying that she acted in a non-selfish and responsible way.. //

Neither do I, because that is not what they said, and that is not what I said either.

My post says - // I refer you to my post at 14:00 - Ms Cafferkey was judged not to have behaved in a selfish and / or irresponsible manner by her disciplinary hearing -... //

Saying that someone has not behaved in an irresponsible way is absolutely not the same as saying that they have behaved in a responsible way.

The tribunal did not conclude that, I did not say that - you have reached a conclusion which is without foundation or accuracy.

// Rather the opposite. It was just that her brain was a bit scrambled at the time and she didn't really know what she was doing. So, she was deemed not responsible for her actions (which were wrong, of course). //

That is true, and I don't dispute it.

[andy-hughes]

murraymints - //andy..does not mean that the general public at large ..and risk..agree with that outcome.... //

Indeed it does not - which is a very good reason why I did not say that it did.

[murraymints]

I don't think that anyone can dispute the fact that if someone knowingly has a temperature ,which is a very real indicator of a deadly disease, enters the country and deliberately masks that condition , thereby threatening the lives of many hundreds of thousands , has acted in a highly irresponsible manner..regardless of what any subsequent jury decides..facts speak.....

[andy-hughes]

murraymints - //I don't think that anyone can dispute the fact that if someone knowingly has a temperature ,which is a very real indicator of a deadly disease, enters the country and deliberately masks that condition , thereby threatening the lives of many hundreds of thousands , has acted in a highly irresponsible manner..regardless of what any subsequent jury decides..facts speak..... //

They key word is 'deliberately'.

Ms. Cafferkey was judged not to have masked her condition deliberately - so you would be wrong in judging her to be highly irresponsible.

[jordyboy14]

Well said murraymints agree with you well said.

[andy-hughes]

murraymints - //I don't think that anyone can dispute the fact that if someone knowingly has a temperature ,which is a very real indicator of a deadly disease, //

Better head down to isolation next time I get the flu then!

[andy-hughes]

jordyboy - //Well said murraymints agree with you well said. //

Your agreement does not alter the fact that murraymints's statement is inaccurate - are you agreeing with a statement that is not been proven to be true?

[murraymints]

a trained nurse would know that taking paracetamol would temporarily bring one's temp down....! even I know that.....the tribunal's outcome to my mind was based on avoiding a national and public scandal versus the good intentions of a volunteer going out there in the first place...a misguided outcome at best....many NHS professionals that I know have poured scorn on that outcome... and to say she did not do it intentionally is somewhat disingenuous

[andy-hughes]

murraymints - //a trained nurse would know that taking paracetamol would temporarily bring one's temp down....! even I know that.....the tribunal's outcome to my mind was based on avoiding a national and public scandal versus the good intentions of a volunteer going out there in the first place...a misguided outcome at best....many NHS professionals that I know have poured scorn on that outcome... and to say she did not do it intentionally is somewhat disingenuous //

If you want to second-guess Ms Cafferkey's mental state at the time she took the medication, and then second-guess the reasons for the tribunal's decision based on evidence that neither you or I have heard, then go right ahead, but you may not find much traction with that view by anyone who looks at the facts as they are known to the public.

[murraymints]

disingenuous to say the VERY least.....but I hope she recovers..

[andy-hughes]

murraymints - //disingenuous to say the VERY least.....but I hope she recovers.. //

Ms Cafferkey - or me? Neither? Both?

[murraymints]

gawd you have ebola Andy ?? ..quick spit three times and wash yer hands oh and take a paracetamol !!! ;0) xx

[andy-hughes]

murraymints - //gawd you have ebola Andy ?? ..quick spit three times and wash yer hands oh and take a paracetamol !!! ;0) xx //

What are you talking about?

[anneasquith]

I'll leave you all to turn this thread into topics already discussed , I wish Pauline cafferkey well.

[murraymints]

indeed Anne..all that needs to be said has been said..hopefully this poor woman will recover and stay well..more importantly..and that nobody else has been infected ..?