21-07-2019, 01:32 PM
(21-07-2019, 12:01 AM)WBuchanan Wrote: Thanks for the kind words Andy B ... but where did I make any personal remarks about Jim W - I did ask a question relating to how one person selecting a panel in secret can guarantee objectivity.
The post was deleted and I have no copy. Perhaps you could indicate what you are referring to?
Cheers
HI Walter,
I can hardly repeat what you wrote here, because it would be deleted as well!
But let's say you are head of an organisation, and something happens that you are ultimately 'responsible' for, without really being 'involved' in what went wrong. The 'leader's' role is to get to the bottom of it.
It's unfair for someone to say that person might be more interested in the investigation supporting their own views or outcomes (whatever they may be, and if they even exist?) rather than actually finding out what went wrong and then fixing it/ensuring it doesn't happen again. It smacks a bit too much of 'conspiracy' and is pretty offensive to the person investing time and energy to keeping the organisation running/improving.
Unless there is any 'previous', a more charitable view might be 'I'm glad our leader is taking this seriously and is ensuring nobody, by accident or design, tries to influence the outcome'. As ID, for example, I choose a selection panel - these names are not made public, and for good reason - let them do their job without harassment/recriminations!
Anyway, this whole situation is very unfortunate, but I suggest waiting to see what the investigation brings out. Questions have been asked, and rightly so, and I'm certain we'll get some answers.