Idiot Steps Down

[jim360]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33090022

Good.

[naomi24]

//Who decides what is, or more importantly, what isn't correct? //

I asked that on page 1.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Thank you very much for your answer, Jim. That's your starter for ten. A more valuable bonus will be available when i return later with my follow-up questions.

[Peter Pedant]

and the bonus is ... ?

Svejk - // Political Correctness is a Marxist construct designed for the sole reason of stifling debate, deciding the parameters of debate.//

the only thing that is in contention is cause and effect
otherwise a skeleton argument would go as follows
a) PC exists ( an existential assumption I only put in coz Jimi is a mathematician )
b ) much loved by the left and abhorred by the right - so "marxist construct" is over egging the pudding but is still defensible - why not use instead " UKIP bugaboo ? "
c) sole purpose - no I think it has other purposes
d) stifling debate - yup certainly doesnt free up debate to exciting free thinkers
e) deciding the parameters - yup since they are there ( see (a)), they have to be taken into account at every juncture and so could be looked on as a strong controlling factor. ergo

[ PS as an exercise the reader is left to fill out further details in the argument ]

[Svejk]

Yes, andy, it's my opinion. Which you will, invariably, find to be the 'correct' one. ;)
What's that saying, Naomi? 'mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery'. Something like that, anyway.

[andy-hughes]

Svejk - //Yes, andy, it's my opinion. Which you will, invariably, find to be the 'correct' one. ;) //

Thanks for that!

[naomi24]

Svejk, //What's that saying, Naomi? 'mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery'. Something like that, anyway. //

Ha ha! Not my intention at all. Just a reminder to everyone that the question has yet to be answered.

[Peter Pedant]

// //Who decides what is, or more importantly, what isn't correct? //
I asked that on page 1. //

There is this stuff called Law for a start.

No I dont want to discuss interminably whether he was fired as a result of lawful process - he had an honorary contract at the Lab,

that is, in this context, a fancy title and possible lab space ( but possibly not) and no payment and no agreed budget. It is NOT a contract and so the uni can terminate it at will. It would have been done by the fella who granted the hon professorship - the usual professor or head of dept. He Sir Tim would have been invited to resign the post before getting terminated.

[ We had one at work and he had no idea how quickly he could be run out of the place when he started playing up - misunderstood the nature of an honorary contract which paradoxically is NOT a contract with an honorarium ( = pay ) ] cut his throat and threw him down the steps of the front building. Bof ! that was the end of it.