Off Topic Politics Thread

[EasyBreezer]

Listened to a very interesting podcast about this very thing where Martin Skhreli discussed this stuff.

He’s the “pharma bro” guy that is absolutely hated in America for raising prices of certain drugs. When you listen to his side of the story and how the system actually works, it changes your opinion.

I’m by no means claiming to be an expert here. I just know for certain that public ownership tends to lead toward worse outcomes for the consumer in almost all industries.

I am not consuming anything, I am aware that large organisations experience bloat. Whilst I agree, It is a separate issue

Your opinion was changed by a guy who shamelessly profiteered off of life saving drugs and went to jail for fraud?

Seriously, some of the people you mention in a positive way is nothing short of mind blowing.

Both Shkreli and the system he exploited have allowed millions of poor people to die unnecessarily. There is no defending it in any capacity. Regardless of your 'trust me bro' podcast.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Your opinion was changed by a guy who shamelessly profiteered off of life saving drugs and went to jail for fraud?

Seriously, some of the people you mention in a positive way is nothing short of mind blowing.

Both Shkreli and the system he exploited have allowed millions of poor people to die unnecessarily. There is no defending it in any capacity. Regardless of your 'trust me bro' podcast.

Have you listened to it? He actually didn’t exploit the system. It’s waaay more complicated than that.

 

[......loading......]

In 2015:


An entrepreneur who acquired the rights to produce a life-saving drug then increased its price more than 50-fold overnight is defending his decision with assertions that the profits will help create better medicines in future.

Medical organizations protested loudly on Sunday after a company owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli raised the price of the drug Daraprim, which treats a dangerous parasitic infection, from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill.


The truth is always simple, Os. Shkreli is an odious man who puts profit above life. He used the feeble justification of long term medical advancement to literally force poor people into poverty. You are funny. You are against taxation but this personalised, punitive, cruel tax on individuals - based on the clear lie he wanted to invest - is fine?

He is a proven liar, a con artist, a swindler. His own lawyer described his twitter history as ‘horrific’.

Of course, when you give him time to explain he is a really nice guy trapped in a system…

 

[Schad]

In 2015:


An entrepreneur who acquired the rights to produce a life-saving drug then increased its price more than 50-fold overnight is defending his decision with assertions that the profits will help create better medicines in future.

Medical organizations protested loudly on Sunday after a company owned by controversial former hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli raised the price of the drug Daraprim, which treats a dangerous parasitic infection, from $13.50 per pill to $750 per pill.


The truth is always simple, Os. Shkreli is an odious man who puts profit above life. He used the feeble justification of long term medical advancement to literally force poor people into poverty. You are funny. You are against taxation but this personalised, punitive, cruel tax on individuals - based on the clear lie he wanted to invest - is fine?

He is a proven liar, a con artist, a swindler. His own lawyer described his twitter history as ‘horrific’.

Of course, when you give him time to explain he is a really nice guy trapped in a system…

He also bragged about doing all of that, so there really isn't any guessing game concerning motive. His motive was to make an enormous profit, he said so himself:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/...increases-with-profit-in-mind-memos-show.html

The investigators also provided evidence showing that Valeant Pharmaceuticals International carefully pondered how much it could raise the price of two old heart drugs, Isuprel and Nitropress, before buying them a year ago and increasing their prices overnight, by 525 percent for Isuprel and 212 percent for Nitropress.

Mr. Shkreli practically gloated about the potential profits in an email he sent last August, just after his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, had paid $55 million to acquire the drug Daraprim, and had raised its price more than fiftyfold to $750 a pill, or $75,000 for a bottle of 100.

“So 5,000 paying bottles at the new price is $375,000,000 — almost all of it is profit and I think we will get three years of that or more,” Mr. Shkreli wrote in the email to someone the congressional staff identified only as an outside contact.


“Should be a very handsome investment for all of us. Let’s all cross our fingers that the estimates are accurate.”

 

[Schad]

The mystery witness who had all of the DAMNING EVIDENCE that Joe Biden took millions, but couldn't publicly speak to it, was actually a fugitive for the past five months after skipping bail on charges that he trafficked arms on behalf of China (and bribed a high-level Trump official in the process), among many other things.

You must log in or register to see media

You must log in or register to see media

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/p...st-co-director-think-tank-acting-unregistered

I'm sure this will be even greater evidence of the massive Biden Crime Family conspiracy, rather than a guy trying desperately to curry favour with one half of the political spectrum because he's facing decades in prison (and judging by the text messages in the charging document, and the fact that he skipped bail, they have him pretty much dead to rights).

 

[Libby]

Good old beeb sitting on allegations of inappropriate behaviour without suspending said accused person. Huw'd have thought it.

Think they'd be more on the ball with this sort of stuff after Saville. Glad they don't get any of my money.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Good old beeb sitting on allegations of inappropriate behaviour without suspending said accused person. Huw'd have thought it.

Think they'd be more on the ball with this sort of stuff after Saville. Glad they don't get any of my money.

I’d suggest it’s more “good old The Sun” for going ahead and publishing a story that even the person’s lawyer says is “rubbish”.

They were hardly sitting on those allegations either. The allegations made by The Sun were very different to the original allegation, which the BBC were investigating. Absolutely right not to be naming anyone in those circumstances either, particularly when it seems to be said “rubbish”.

 

[Libby]

I’d suggest it’s more “good old The Sun” for going ahead and publishing a story that even the person’s lawyer says is “rubbish”.

They were hardly sitting on those allegations either. The allegations made by The Sun were very different to the original allegation, which the BBC were investigating. Absolutely right not to be naming anyone in those circumstances either, particularly when it seems to be said “rubbish”.

Just because the young person's lawyer says it's rubbish it doesn't make it so. Presumably a crack cocaine addict isn't paying for a lawyer which raises the question of who is likely to be paying that lawyer and for what benefit...

What was the original allegation? Personally when you're an organisation that has a history of defending perverts and sex offenders who are paid for by public money then I think you should act quicker to suspend someone suspected of wrongdoing.

I'm not defending the Sun here btw, absolute scumbag paper, but there are certainly questions about the beeb that need to be answered here. What was nature of original report which meant they deemed a suspension not appropriate? What action was taken? What was fed back to the parent who complained?

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Just because the young person's lawyer says it's rubbish it doesn't make it so. Presumably a crack cocaine addict isn't paying for a lawyer which raises the question of who is likely to be paying that lawyer and for what benefit...

What was the original allegation? Personally when you're organisation has a history of defending perverts and sex offenders who are paid for by public money then I think you should act quicker to suspend someone suspected of wrongdoing.

I'm not defending the Sun here btw, absolute scumbag paper, but there are certainly questions about the beeb that need to be answered here. What action was taken? What was fed back to the parent who complained?

I’d be totally unsurprised if we’re talking about an OnlyFans account here. Distasteful perhaps, but entirely legal.

In terms of the original accusation, I guess we’ll find out, and that’s kinda important here, but I hate the idea of any half baked thing being flung around as enough to suspend someone. If that was policy, people would start weaponising it.

 

[Libby]

I’d be totally unsurprised if we’re talking about an OnlyFans account here. Distasteful perhaps, but entirely legal.

In terms of the original accusation, I guess we’ll find out, and that’s kinda important here, but I hate the idea of any half baked thing being flung around as enough to suspend someone. If that was policy, people would start weaponising it.

Aren't there reports that the person in question was 17 when this started? In which case it certainly wouldn't be legal.

And yeah I'm sure we'll find out the specifics in due time. I certainly think that anyone accused of behaving inappropriately sexually (at the least) who is a public figure and essentially paid for out of public money should be suspended while an investigation is carried out.

It's even more important when the organisation has history of protecting sex offenders. The optics aren't great are they?

 

[St. Luigi Scrosoppi]

Next time I am mugged or burgled I shall report it to the Sun rather than the police. That it seems is the thing to do if you are thick.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Aren't there reports that the person in question was 17 when this started? In which case it certainly wouldn't be legal.

And yeah I'm sure we'll find out the specifics in due time. I certainly think that anyone accused of behaving inappropriately sexually (at the least) who is a public figure and essentially paid for out of public money should be suspended while an investigation is carried out.

It's even more important when the organisation has history of protecting sex offenders. The optics aren't great are they?

Well that would depend on what the original accusation was. If it was “X is a paid up member of my daughter’s OnlyFans account”, you’d expect them to investigate and have a word. Not suspend the person. The age part in that instance actually sits with OnlyFans.

Look, you may be right here, but I thoroughly disapprove of automatically suspending someone the minute an accusation is made. Otherwise you’d have arseholes, and people like The Sun taking down people they don’t like (such as Lineker) on the eve of a World Cup. That would happen. It’s right that things are investigated, and as the family hadn’t been to the police to report any crime, it’s doubly right.

If the police were involved, you’d take advice from them, but they weren’t. It was a random making a (different to the one we know now) accusation. So no, I think an internal investigation is absolutely right at that point.

Also, don’t underestimate quite how much that ****er Murdoch hates the BBC. If there’s a good resolution to this, it’s that it’s shown to be a nonsense, firstly because that means no youngster was taken advantage of, but secondly because it would be a slam dunk massive legal case the BBC could whack The Scum with.

 

[StJabbo1]

Just because the young person's lawyer says it's rubbish it doesn't make it so. Presumably a crack cocaine addict isn't paying for a lawyer which raises the question of who is likely to be paying that lawyer and for what benefit...

What was the original allegation? Personally when you're an organisation that has a history of defending perverts and sex offenders who are paid for by public money then I think you should act quicker to suspend someone suspected of wrongdoing.

I'm not defending the Sun here btw, absolute scumbag paper, but there are certainly questions about the beeb that need to be answered here. What was nature of original report which meant they deemed a suspension not appropriate? What action was taken? What was fed back to the parent who complained?

To those questions add. Why the police don't consider the threshold for a criminal investigation to have yet been reached? What about the parents? Surely there are more responsable publications to go to than that rag with a proven history of lies, misinformation and sensationalism. Waiting for answers without accusations or slagging the BBC is the way to go.

 

[Schad]

If the police were involved, you’d take advice from them, but they weren’t. It was a random making a (different to the one we know now) accusation. So no, I think an internal investigation is absolutely right at that point.

Worth clarifying that the police were involved, according to the Sun, but concluded that nothing illegal occurred.

Suspect you're right here: the underlying story, presuming there is one, is that the woman in question was engaged in some form of online sex work, and the presenter was one of her customers. Which is something that we haven't really sorted the morality out for...it's pretty icky (even if she's of legal age) in my books, given the likely age disparity, but it's also ultimately a legal commercial transaction between consenting adults if so. And then if you're narrowing it down to just the morality, you get into doubly murky territory if it's the Sun calling out an old guy for paying to ogle young women, because, I mean, Page 3 exists.

 

[Shandy_top_89]

Some big time ‘guilty until proven innocent’ sentiment going on.

Don’t get me wrong it may turn out that the person is guilty and the BBC have totally bollocksed things, but it’s far from clear and by the sounds of it very contentious.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Some big time ‘guilty until proven innocent’ sentiment going on.

Don’t get me wrong there it may turn out that the person is guilty and the BBC have totally bollocksed things, but it’s far from clear and by the sounds of it very contentious.

And likewise, if the person is innocent (even if morally a bit icky), then the BBC have done entirely the correct thing. I mean, could go either way, of course, but it’s beginning to look like the latter.

 

[St. Luigi Scrosoppi]

Murdoch newspaper slagging off the BBC. What a surprise.

 

[Shandy_top_89]

Murdoch newspaper slagging off the BBC. What a surprise.

Sunak not missing his opportunity to put in the boot as well, which seems interesting given how many times he and his party hide behind ‘can’t possibly comment while (insert investigation) takes place’.

Of course we know their pref is for completely balanced outlets like GB News where two Tory MPs can interview a Tory minister.

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

Sunak not missing his opportunity to put in the boot as well, which seems interesting given how many times he and his party hide behind ‘can’t possibly comment while (insert investigation) takes place’.

Of course we know their pref is for completely balanced outlets like GB News where two Tory MPs can interview a Tory minister.

This government has been embroiled in sleaze that they will, justifiably, pay the price for. But you are taking the opportunity to put the boot into Sunak which on this occasion seems unmerited. Politicians are asked questions about all sorts of events (he was even asked about the Aussie cricketers last week), he hasn't just volunteered his opinion. In this case what he said about "presentergate" was pretty reasonable IMO.

He said they were "shocking and concerning allegations" which I think they are.

"Speaking to journalists while travelling to a Nato summit, Rishi Sunak said that the government has been assured the BBC is investigating and the process being undertaken "is rigorous and will be swift".

"Given the concerning nature of the allegations it's right they’re investigated swiftly and rigorously and it’s important we now let that carry on.""

Not too much there to get all party political over.

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

I'm no great fan of the BBC but I can't really criticise them over this until the facts are known. If they have kept things quiet, and given their history, they should rightly get pulled over the coals but they are the presenter's employer and have a duty to protect him if innocent.
It's human nature to gossip and want the dirty details on a celeb but it's not a right and the legal implications around damage to a person's reputation quite often overrule public interest.