Master of the Rotunda 'fesses...

MadsL

Piece in yesterdays IT

The master of the Rotunda, Dr Michael Geary, has said that the number of non-national women presenting to the hospital in the later stages of pregnancy had fallen to almost zero in the wake of last year's Citizenship Referendum.

Here's the man that started it, now says that his concern was not where they came from, but the fact that they were presenting late in pregnancy.

In a complete mockery of any objectivity, he claims later in the article, that there is still a steady number of non-national women giving birth in the hospital, but that they are presenting earlier in pregnacy.

Once AGAIN he fails to give any statistical evidence whatsover to back up his claims.

Nuttzz

I'm sure he his speaking from his personal experience, he is in a position to know a lot more than anyone here, not everyone shouts "show us your sources/evidence/stats" when interviewing someone (thankfully)

bonkey

In a complete mockery of any objectivity, he claims later in the article, that there is still a steady number of non-national women giving birth in the hospital, but that they are presenting earlier in pregnacy.

Why is this a mockery of objectivity?

I seem to recall (but I could be wrong) that pretty much as soon as his original comments were being dragged up as a reason for our constitutional change, he went out of his way to clarify that the issue was the late presentation, because this is what put undue pressure on resources. Hell, I remember people beating arcadegame2004 around the place with this very fact, because he constantly was misrepresenting what Geary's complaint was, and what the implications were.

MadsL wrote:

Once AGAIN he fails to give any statistical evidence whatsover to back up his claims.

Why should he supply such information? he's being interviewed for an article in a news-paper. He's not engaging in a public (or broadcast) debate.

Perhaps more pertinently - how do you know he didn't give any evidence? What you see is the end-product, where (presumably) an interview with him was carried out, and then the entire journalistic, editorial and layout processes interfered, requiring the making such ignoble decisions as which information to include or exclude.

Maybe if they left out the line which explained who he was, they coul dhave included the short remark he made which did clear up where the information came from. Maybe he didn't think of mentioning it because, well, he wasn't being cross-examined, and it would seem fairly obvious that the senior representative of a hospital should have some clue of what goes on there? Maybe it was omitted because there was no source mentioned by him, but the reporter checked out its veracity?

Come to think of it - how do we know that he's actually the master of the Rotunda. Where was the proof of that statement offered in the article? How do we know we can trust the reporter to actually report what was said?

Oh - and while we're at it...

Here's the man that started it, now says that his concern was not where they came from, but the fact that they were presenting late in pregnancy.

Where's your proof that he is the man who started it?
Where's your proof that his initial concern was where they came from?

(Need I continue?)

And if you don't think you need to provide this because its easily verifiable and/or the way to find the information has been pointed out somewhere before....why aren't you allowing him the same "freedom" in terms of what he states without proof?
jc

ishmael whale

MadsL wrote:

Here's the man that started it, now says that his concern was not where they came from, but the fact that they were presenting late in pregnancy.

In fairness, my recollection was that at the time the Master's made clear their issue was late presentation and both the risks this brought to the mothers and infants and the pressures it brought on staff. It's ultimately a matter for the electorate to decide what they want to do about that.

It's utterly circumstantial evidence, but you will undoubtably be aware that asylum applications are also dropping signficantly. Ultimately few things in life are cut and dried. People just need to take such information as is available and make sense of it. Do I still feel I voted the right way? Yes. On the other hand, do I think there's any point in deporting people who have made lives here in recent years? No, and I don't see how Irish citizenship means anything if you can be parted from your parents.

uberwolf

MadsL wrote:

Here's the man that started it, now says that his concern was not where they came from, but the fact that they were presenting late in pregnancy.

In a complete mockery of any objectivity, he claims later in the article, that there is still a steady number of non-national women giving birth in the hospital, but that they are presenting earlier in pregnacy.

Once AGAIN he fails to give any statistical evidence whatsover to back up his claims.

Now says? he said at the time, thats what he said originally but had to clarify it because people jumped on a bandwagon, both PC brigade and red top. So you're misrepresenting this situation

What, can I ask, do you want him to be objective about? He simply makes another observation, to further clarify that the situation which had caused him concern had been nigh on sorted.

Let me suggest that he knows considerably more about the real situation that anyone here, and more than any stats care to demonstrate. He is charge of the place and so knows what is going on. Thats not to say he cannot be challenged, but he should not be misrepresented.


mycroft - stay on topic.

MadsL

He is charge of the place and so knows what is going on.

Really? My point is straightforward. His initial 'concerns' were not backed up by the statistics until after the referendum. And when they were finally delivered gave a rather different picture to the hysteria that was generated at the time.

Given that to be the case, I find it hard to accept that, without some comparative numbers being given, independently audited, and with reference to:
1. The fall in asylum seekers numbers generally in the EU
2. Any health awareness campaigns having being undertaken
3. The legal status of non-nationals

That his statements are any more than "since we started using the anti-elephant dust, we haven't seen any elephants"

bonkey wrote:

why aren't you allowing him the same "freedom" in terms of what he states without proof?

I wish the journalist/editor had done thier job properly. I'm reprimanding the Master for going public twice with the "I know what I'm talking about" line. The first time he started a ball rolling towards Constitutional change (probably uneeded) - this time he appears to be simply justifying his actions, but once again with no hard evidence that gives anyone an opportunity to question his 'observations'. <sarcasm>Who knows, perhaps they now close the door on anyone presenting late in pregnancy and this gives him his zero figure??</sarcasm>

uberwolf

MadsL wrote:

different picture to the hysteria

well there you have it. He had to clarify in the face of the hysteria as well.

What we have here so far is a debate about an article we haven't seen. The man was presumably asked a series of general questions and responded truthfully to the best of his knowledge.

He has said according to you, " the number of non-national women presenting to the hospital in the later stages of pregnancy". How do we know if the editor/journalist then decided to add the cause effect supposition?

Maybe you're right, maybe this is reflected across Europe. Thats not his field of expertise though - all he can comment on is The Rotunda. Do you believe there to be a comparable number of non-national women presenting in late stages as previous years? Why do you then doubt his veracity?

bonkey

MadsL wrote:

And when they were finally delivered gave a rather different picture to the hysteria that was generated at the time.

A different picture to the hysteria...yes. A different picture to what he actually said....I don't think so.

As for the provision of statistics....its not his job. His job is not to prove at every turn that he can back up everything he says. He was put into a position of authority for a reason, and to require and and every job-related public utterance to be iron-clad with references to prove its validity is simply ridiculous.

Given that to be the case, I find it hard to accept that, without some comparative numbers being given, independently audited, and with reference to:

Go back to what you said about hysteria. See, the problem isn't what he said. Its what people are suggesting he actually meant when he said this.

Also...You can't accept that the numbers have fallen post-referendum? Or you can't accept that the referendum is what caused the numbers to fall? The former is what he was reported to have said...the latter is what you appear to be saying you can't accept. They are not the same thing.

That his statements are any more than "since we started using the anti-elephant dust, we haven't seen any elephants"

And again - you seem to be blurring the dsitinction between what he said with what people are suggesting it means.

I wish the journalist/editor had done thier job properly.

Which is what? You wish the journalist/editor had treated this like a court-case where they were a lawyer who's job it was to prove not only the veracity of what was said, but also to provide factual evidence to support any and every conclusion drawn?

I'm reprimanding the Master for going public twice with the "I know what I'm talking about" line.

We've still no reason to suspect he doesn't know what he's talking about.

We've reason to believe that people other than the Master have gone out of their way to decide what they think he meant, and that these people have often over- or mis-stated the case.

The first time he started a ball rolling towards Constitutional change

No, he didn't. No more than whoever appointed him to his position started the ball rolling, nor his parents by conceiving him did.

He made a comment about a problem which was being faced. The problem was real, and the statistics have shown that. This is part of his job. He is supposed to deal with problems facing his charge.

Someone else decided what the root cause of this problem was, and how it should be dealt with.

So again you're blurring what he said with how other people decided to (mis)interpret it.

but once again with no hard evidence that gives anyone an opportunity to question his 'observations'.

Funny....you claim no-one has an opportunity to question his observations, and yet have done nothing in this thread except exactly that. So which is it - your complaints are groundless, or your contradicting yourself?

jc

MadsL

As for the provision of statistics....its not his job. His job is not to prove at every turn that he can back up everything he says. He was put into a position of authority for a reason, and to require and and every job-related public utterance to be iron-clad with references to prove its validity is simply ridiculous.

Why. He's a public official. I assume that they have now kept records, why not go public with a report rather than an opinion.

Go back to what you said about hysteria. See, the problem isn't what he said. Its what people are suggesting he actually meant when he said this.

So why not clarify through a report or pressrelease instead of an open-to-interpretation comment.

Also...You can't accept that the numbers have fallen post-referendum? Or you can't accept that the referendum is what caused the numbers to fall? The former is what he was reported to have said...the latter is what you appear to be saying you can't accept. They are not the same thing.

What I said was I find it hard to accept that, ....
... his statements are any more than "since we started using the anti-elephant dust, we haven't seen any elephants"

Which is what? You wish the journalist/editor had treated this like a court-case where they were a lawyer who's job it was to prove not only the veracity of what was said, but also to provide factual evidence to support any and every conclusion drawn

I would have at least asked the question about when the report/statistics were coming out given that this was an issue the last time he made a statement, god forbid that a journalist should ask questions!

We've still no reason to suspect he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm pointing out the fact that his comments last time, without hard stats to reference them, were misinterpreted, and here he is again doing the same old thing. Think he'd learn.

He made a comment about a problem which was being faced. The problem was real, and the statistics have shown that. This is part of his job. He is supposed to deal with problems facing his charge.

And dealing with the press...who looks after that?? Is that his job too?

Funny....you claim no-one has an opportunity to question his observations, and yet have done nothing in this thread except exactly that. So which is it - your complaints are groundless, or your contradicting yourself?

Neither, a publicly appointed official has made a comment. I would expect data to be available to support that claim. I am questioning why was it not published, especially give the history of the issue. Is that my right as a taxpayer, Bonkey, or not? Or would you like to play semantics some more?

Nuttzz

why dont you make an FOI request to the Dept of Health rather than have a hissy fit here about looking for stats.

Let us know how you get on.....

madmorphy

MadsL wrote:

Piece in yesterdays IT



Here's the man that started it, now says that his concern was not where they came from, but the fact that they were presenting late in pregnancy.

In a complete mockery of any objectivity, he claims later in the article, that there is still a steady number of non-national women giving birth in the hospital, but that they are presenting earlier in pregnacy.

Once AGAIN he fails to give any statistical evidence whatsover to back up his claims.

The referendum is over the people have spoken,live with it !.Bloody lefties,they only believe in democracy when the vote goes their way.



mod edit: unconstructive trolling - you're risking a ban

bonkey

MadsL wrote:

Why. He's a public official. I assume that they have now kept records, why not go public with a report rather than an opinion.

So you're now saying that no public official anywhere should ever offer an opinion on something?

Instead, they should tell the public "I could answer that question, but I'd like you to wait until we produce an official report on the matter"????

"Yes...I do know what the story is, that being my job and all, and I am aware of the problems, but we are neither going to attempt to do anything ourselves, nor tell anyone about anything until such times as what we know has gone through the bureaucratic system to the extent that a fully audited, verified, signed sealed and delivered report is produced."

You know...I'm pretty sure you'd be amongst the first to lambast some public official for using this suggestion of yours as a method to avoid answering questions in the manner I've just outlined....but maybe I'm wrong.

Incidentally, if thats not what you're saying, then maybe you could explain how its any different a situation. The only way it could be is if someone has already confirmed that this information will never be released to the public.

So why not clarify through a report or pressrelease instead of an open-to-interpretation comment.

Generally - at a guess - because the report takes longer to prepare than the information? Also because one is often aware of information that is not deemed press-worthy, but which the press subsequently ask about.

What are you proposing we do? Require that all public officials stop talking to the press, unless their answer to every question is either "there is a report already available, so why are you asking me", or "there is no report on that, so I can't offer an opinion. I will see about having a report drafted, at which indeterminate point in the future, you will hopefully find you have an answer to the question."

Everything else opens them up to the "why isn't there a report if the information exsits" criticism that you're throwing around here.

What I said was I find it hard to accept that, ....
... his statements are any more than "since we started using the anti-elephant dust, we haven't seen any elephants"

Well seeing as - in this particular case - we know there were elephants, my confusion was regarding what part of this you're finding hard to accept.

Are you saying you find it hard to accept that the numbers have decreased? Or are you saying you find it hard to accept that the numbers have decreased since the referendum? Or are you saying that you find it hard to accept that they decreased because of the referendum, and that this means the referendum was somehow justified.

Only the first two are actually what Geary said. The third is based on interpretation of what was reported he said, which is not his problem.

I would have at least asked the question about when the report/statistics were coming out given that this was an issue the last time he made a statement, god forbid that a journalist should ask questions!

He could have researched it, found out that Geary was indeed accurate in what he was saying, and then printed Geary's statement. There's no requirement on him to show the research to the reader. Again...you seem to be assuming that because its not in the final journalistic piece, that it didn't happen. Geary didn't supply any references, the journalist didn't ask any additional questions, and didn't do his homework. Did it occur to you that journalists generally love nothing more than to catch prominent figures like this making up porky pies, and the fact that this wasn't reported as the case by anyone would tend to suggest that its because Geary was telling the truth last time round.

And if he was telling the truth last time round (and it was simply one side's fanatical misrepresentation of this nugget which really got to you), then what possible reason do we have to doubt the man this time round? Hasn't his track record actually improved by the fact that his initial statements were correct. They were simply taken out of context to be (ab)used by those who had their own agenda.

I'm pointing out the fact that his comments last time, without hard stats to reference them, were misinterpreted, and here he is again doing the same old thing.

So all this mockery of objectivity, lack of factual basis and so on that you've been complaining about up until now...thats not actually stuff you have a problem with? Your problem is how a journalist took what he said and choose to report it.

Could you stop cimplaining about the bits that you don't have a problem with, then?

Incidentally...you don't, I assume, have a transcript of the original interview? Without it, how can you know that he's doing the same old thing at all? How do you know its not a journalist taking a carefully stated, clarified, caveated position, and dropping out all the bits that make it non-sensationalist, and choosing to write it up that way? How do you know the journalist didn't ask the questions you said they should have?

It seems to me that the closer we look at this, the more you're issue is hanging on the assumptions you've made...which is funny considering that your underlying complaint is fundamentally about opinion vs fact.

And dealing with the press...who looks after that?? Is that his job too?

I'm trying to think of organisations where the top people have a policy of not talking to the press about their work...ever...and so far I'm coming up a blank.

So yes, I'd say that dealing with the press is definitely part of his job. He won't be the only person who does it, and it won't be the main part of his job, but yes. He should have dealings with the press.

Neither, a publicly appointed official has made a comment.
I would expect data to be available to support that claim.

I expect that the data is not being suppressed, and I am entirely unsurprised that people can make accurate-but-imprecise statements of the nature that he did.

There's no suggestion that the information won't become available. You're basically tearing into the guy because it isn't. The first time round that he opened up his mouth and got misinterpreted...the information followed later on....no? And it showed he was telling the truth....no? So again...where is the problem with what he's doing.

Have you actually checked, incidentally, that the information isn't available or did you take the lack of a mention in the newspaper article as proof that it doesn't exist? Oh...wait....apparently you have:

I am questioning why was it not published,

(I'll assume by this statement you have checked (or will correct me if I'm wrong and you're simply making unproven and uninformed assumptions which you're presenting as fact).

Perhaps its because its not ready yet?
Maybe its only published annually, despite figures being collated and perhaps even reported internally on a quarterly or montly basis?

Is that my right as a taxpayer, Bonkey, or not?

To insist that it be published? Sure. But I've seen no indication that its being suppressed. Indeed, we know that previous figures were published, and we can even see the timeframe that took. If we apply a similar schedule to the information post-referendum, we can conclude that it should be published...ohhh....sometime in the next year or two.

Surely you should wait until there's even a suggestion that it won't be published before demanding that it should be, when every available piece of information suggests that it will be?

Or are you asking if its your right to insist that no member of staff make a comment regarding information that has not yet been published? Well...its still you're right to do so...but you're wrong in thinking its a solution to anything, and shouldn't be given what you're demanding. At least in my opinion....and I know I have the right to express it.

Or would you like to play semantics some more?

Semantics? You mean like taking what people say, and construing it to mean what you want rather than just what was said? Isn't that what you started this thread about? If you don't want to discuss it any more...thats fine....you don't have to respond.

jc

cdebru

My understanding is that the original statement of the masters of the 3 maternity hospitals was with regard to the fact that they needed extra resources they highlighted various problems including the one of late presentation

this statement was then used as justification for a need to change the citizenship laws and the masters of the maternity hospitals clarified that this was not the reason they had highlighted the issue that they had simply been looking for resources to deal with the problems they were facing late presentation being one of them

Geary can not be held responsible for how the information was used by the Government

Nuttzz

I wont normally agree with cdebru however I think he has hit the nail on the head

uberwolf

Nuttzz - was the first clause of your post really needed

cdebru wrote:

hope it didn't hurt too much

take it to PM.

off topic posts split to Recycle bin. Any further commentary by PM- if at all.