A question of policy

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1480150]

Note - by "public" here, I mean to people outside of the company, like journalists or similar, not openly to people inside of the company.

Comments

[andrewducker]

The link to the publication from which the talks was made that akicif left in my latest post indicates that it was the former. I originally saw it portrayed in the media as the latter. Which explains where my confusion comes from. He doesn't seem to have crossed any lines at all, that I can see.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

I've now read extracts (in the Guardian, which I found on a seat on the Victoria Line this evening) and he clearly overstepped the bounds. As other people have said, if you're on an advisory committee, you can speak freely in your private professional capacity, but you must state that you are not speaking as a member of the advisory committee. His lecture makes repeated reference to the work of the advisory committee and his role within it and it is entirely reasonable that people would interpret what he said as speaking in that capacity. Most of the content would be unexceptional if not for that, but there's also a patch in the lecture where he talks about the specious thinking of 'many people' and makes it clear that 'many people' includes politicians.

Should he have been forced to resign? A matter for the politicians I would think, though it doesn't appear to me that the issue is playing out particularly well for them at the moment.