Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   For the low, low, price of $100 an hour, British scientists will say whatever you want them to   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
29
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

4712 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 07 Sep 2009 at 1:44 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
ArkAngel [TotalFark]
2009-09-07 1:50:07 AM  
£ != $
 
kayanlau
2009-09-07 1:53:56 AM  
... say my name, say my name ...

/... !xobile
 
krupintupple
2009-09-07 2:01:06 AM  
oh noes! someone's got HP on their faces now, guv!
 
Nuclear Monk
2009-09-07 2:17:22 AM  
Doctor != Scientist
 
Notabunny [TotalFark]
2009-09-07 2:22:40 AM  
I've been looking for someone to spank me and call me Shirley
 
WxGuy1
2009-09-07 3:30:24 AM  

vertiaset: SOME Scientists, engineers, doctors, architects and every other type of "expert" will say what you want them too if you pay them enough.

Lawyers have known this for years.


FTFY. There are still scientists that have strong ethics and a persistent desire to seek the truth. Of course, there are bad apples that will say whatever you want them to say if you just give them a little money.

/ I assume we're not talking about $10 million or something crazy like that
 
Glimmerous Fop
2009-09-07 3:39:11 AM  
Generally, if you like science but want to make money, you become an engineer, not a scientist.

Or, worse, a doctor.

/respect doctors, but actually being one must suck
 
Tweeker
2009-09-07 4:52:43 AM  
img1.fark.net
 
Umyli
2009-09-07 5:00:48 AM  
...but will they say it in assless chaps? I'm not paying $100/hr if we're not going to get-all-tasteful-up-in-here.

Peh, who am I kidding? I'm not paying $100/hr for anything. I've never even seen a hundred-dollar bill.
 
traylor
2009-09-07 5:15:25 AM  
And how much is it to get this article greenlit on the Geek page?
 
Feldspar Q. Walrustitty
2009-09-07 5:30:26 AM  
Does that include a happy ending?
 
abigsmurf
2009-09-07 7:42:25 AM  
These articles are stupid for a number of reasons:

You cannot fake terminal cancer, there would be too many people who'd need to be in on it for it to be remotely possible.

There's a good chance he'll live longer than 3 months. Cancer is hard to predict. My nan lived about 18 months when she was predicted a year. He may last a while, he may have sudden kidney failure in 3 weeks time

Regardless, he's going to be in extreme pain for most of that time and his 'freedom' will be 'being pushed around a hospice by a nurse'.
 
Orgasmatron138
2009-09-07 9:20:55 AM  
Sophistry!

Socrates was condemned to death for that.
 
Nemo's Brother
2009-09-07 11:16:03 AM  
Paging Al Gore! Paging Al Gore!
 
Halli
2009-09-07 11:40:38 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Paging Al Gore! Paging Al Gore!


Why is he being paid off by the oil industry?
 
Linux_Yes
2009-09-07 11:43:59 AM  
AND AMERICAN SCIENTISTS/DOCTORS HAVE PRINCIPLES AND INTEGRITY AND WOULD NEVER STOOP TO SAYING WHAT THE MONEY FUNDERS WANTED THEM TO SAY.

now, you're making me laugh hard, Fark.
 
FormlessOne [TotalFark]
2009-09-07 12:47:08 PM  
Did no one RTFA?

Consultants asked "how long does someone have to live" and paid for the research != Mouthpieces told what to say and bribed for it.

In other news, British paper publishes silly-ass inflammatory article, banking on lack of reading comprehension to stir outrage.
 
way south
2009-09-07 1:05:15 PM  

FormlessOne: Did no one RTFA?

Consultants asked "how long does someone have to live" and paid for the research != Mouthpieces told what to say and bribed for it.

In other news, British paper publishes silly-ass inflammatory article, banking on lack of reading comprehension to stir outrage.


The man is responsible for two hundred and seventy deaths.
Mercy is not what most people had in mind for him...

Pretty much the only thing that can piss people off more is if he lives a day beyond what these doctors estimated. The longer he continues to breath, the more of a sham this deal becomes.
 
jso2897
2009-09-07 1:27:08 PM  
No, they won't.
i18.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
limboslam
2009-09-07 1:42:06 PM  

abigsmurf: These articles are stupid for a number of reasons:

You cannot fake terminal cancer, there would be too many people who'd need to be in on it for it to be remotely possible.

There's a good chance he'll live longer than 3 months. Cancer is hard to predict. My nan lived about 18 months when she was predicted a year. He may last a while, he may have sudden kidney failure in 3 weeks time

Regardless, he's going to be in extreme pain for most of that time and his 'freedom' will be 'being pushed around a hospice by a nurse'.


Good. You know what would be better? Him being in extreme pain for ALL the time he has left and being dragged around a prison cell having absolutely no freedom.
 
limboslam
2009-09-07 1:44:22 PM  

Linux_Yes: AND AMERICAN SCIENTISTS/DOCTORS HAVE PRINCIPLES AND INTEGRITY AND WOULD NEVER STOOP TO SAYING WHAT THE MONEY FUNDERS WANTED THEM TO SAY.

now, you're making me laugh hard, Fark.


Names please.
 
RemyDuron
2009-09-07 2:38:58 PM  

limboslam: Good. You know what would be better? Him being in extreme pain for ALL the time he has left and being dragged around a prison cell having absolutely no freedom.


Justice is not about revenge.

And doctors aren't exactly scientists. Unless they were research doctors doing scientific experiments, which I doubt they were.
 
Eirik
2009-09-07 3:31:26 PM  

RemyDuron: limboslam: Good. You know what would be better? Him being in extreme pain for ALL the time he has left and being dragged around a prison cell having absolutely no freedom.

Justice is not about revenge.

And doctors aren't exactly scientists. Unless they were research doctors doing scientific experiments, which I doubt they were.


He served something like 10 days in prison for each person he killed. He wasn't going to die in a cell, it would have been a prison hospital. His immediate family already lived nearby and were allowed to visit. It's not like he was in a dungeon chained to a wall fighting with rats for food.

Sure, it's nice that he gets to spend his last moments with his family. The only ones that did on Pan Am 103 were sitting next to them.
 
Sum Dum Gai
2009-09-07 3:56:59 PM  

way south: The man is responsible for two hundred and seventy deaths.


Actually, that's still open for debate. In fact, I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons the UK let him go so quietly was that he was beginning his second set of appeals, and it looked very likely that his conviction would be overturned entirely.

The evidence against the guy was very slim, even at the time, which is the entire reason he had a second appeals process to begin with -- the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered the second trial after a four-year investigation found multiple instances of miscarriage of justice.
 
Eirik
2009-09-07 4:06:34 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: way south: The man is responsible for two hundred and seventy deaths.

Actually, that's still open for debate. In fact, I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons the UK let him go so quietly was that he was beginning his second set of appeals, and it looked very likely that his conviction would be overturned entirely.

The evidence against the guy was very slim, even at the time, which is the entire reason he had a second appeals process to begin with -- the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered the second trial after a four-year investigation found multiple instances of miscarriage of justice.


The problem is, that's a different issue. If he is not guilty, then it's an issue that needs to be decided by the courts, not circumvented by playing on sympathy. I'm curious if he is still trying to clear his name now that he's out of jail, or if he even can once released.

But until a court of proper jurisdiction says that he was in fact wrongfully convicted and vacates his conviction, he's still guilty.

It doesn't help that, true or not, it looks like the British and Lybian governments were using his release as a bargining chip for BP. That issue alone muddies things up tremendously.
 
Funktasticlese
2009-09-07 5:17:51 PM  

Inhumator: What a scientist may look like:


It's what I came for.
 
tenpoundsofcheese
2009-09-07 7:01:32 PM  

Eirik: Sum Dum Gai: way south: The man is responsible for two hundred and seventy deaths.

Actually, that's still open for debate. In fact, I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons the UK let him go so quietly was that he was beginning his second set of appeals, and it looked very likely that his conviction would be overturned entirely.

The evidence against the guy was very slim, even at the time, which is the entire reason he had a second appeals process to begin with -- the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered the second trial after a four-year investigation found multiple instances of miscarriage of justice.


It doesn't help that, true or not, it looks like the British and Lybian governments were using his release as a bargining chip for BP. That issue alone muddies things up tremendously.


so what did the US get out of this deal?
According the British, Obama and Clinton knew all about this deal as it was happening.
BTW no outrage over that.
 
way south
2009-09-07 8:50:38 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Eirik: Sum Dum Gai: way south: The man is responsible for two hundred and seventy deaths.

Actually, that's still open for debate. In fact, I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons the UK let him go so quietly was that he was beginning his second set of appeals, and it looked very likely that his conviction would be overturned entirely.

The evidence against the guy was very slim, even at the time, which is the entire reason he had a second appeals process to begin with -- the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered the second trial after a four-year investigation found multiple instances of miscarriage of justice.


It doesn't help that, true or not, it looks like the British and Lybian governments were using his release as a bargining chip for BP. That issue alone muddies things up tremendously.

so what did the US get out of this deal?
According the British, Obama and Clinton knew all about this deal as it was happening.
BTW no outrage over that.


Knowing about it doesn't mean they organized it.

Now personally I am one to fully understand a prisoner trade if its part of some bigger national goal. Obviously not everyone would agree with that, but nations need many things which cash cant always buy. Its nothing we haven't done in the US before.

Its just that, on the surface, it sounds like we've been had... that's a notion I don't like in the least.
 
abigsmurf
2009-09-08 6:34:35 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: so what did the US get out of this deal?
According the British, Obama and Clinton knew all about this deal as it was happening.
BTW no outrage over that.


$10million compensation per family involved in the bombings not enough?

He's a British prisoner who was arrested under British law. The US is entitled to nothing.

The evidence that got him convicted was shady as hell; he was convicted on the basis of a single item of clothing bought from a store he went to. An item that was only found months after the crash. He was also told not to speak in his own defence.

Had he appealed, his conviction would've almost certainly been quashed .
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Total access
Total knowledge
Total Fark

learn more | sign up

On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.