The PMs Answer to the Pill question.

#1
This has been reported as the actual words used by several net sources.

" Andrew Marr
If you were an American president, we would know all about your medical history. You were asked in the States about your eyesight, and I think the reason you were asked is because people were wondering whether that would be a reason for standing down at some point. Let me ask you about something else everybody has been talking about – a lot of people … use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of those?

Gordon Brown
No. I think this is the sort of questioning that is …

Andrew Marr
It's a fair question, I think.

Gordon Brown
… is all too often entering the lexicon of British politics. I have had very serious problems with my eye. I lost my eyesight playing rugby. I had three major operations and they could not save my sight. I then had exactly the same thing happen to my second eye … and every year, of course, I have to check, as I did only a few days ago, that my eyesight is good and there has been absolutely no deterioration in my eyesight, and I think people should be absolutely clear that although …

Andrew Marr
What about my other question?

Gordon Brown
I answered your other question. Although I have problems with my eyes and it has been very difficult over the years, I think people understand that you can do a job and you can work hard. And I think it would be a terrible indictment of our political system if you thought that because someone had this medical issue they couldn't do the job. So, Andrew, I think these questions … of course you might be right to ask them, but … I feel that I have done everything to show people that I can do the job even with the handicap that I've had as a result of a rugby injury."

In the past I have seen the PM asked a direct question in Parliament and then answer another subject altogether.
john
 
#2
A politician being evasive and dodging out of answering a direct question?
Whatever next?

To be fair it is something that annoys the hell out of me both at PMQs and in other areas - Harriet Harman on Question Time last week proved herself a master of evasion even when asked a 'yes or no' question.

Do you remember the Jeremy Paxman grilling of Michael Howard? 'Did you threaten to overule him' Twleve times in succession. I would love to see Gordon Brown subjected to that kind of interview pressure quite simply because I very much doubt that he would have the self-control not to completely explode at the interviewer
 
#3
jonwilly said:
This has been reported as the actual words used by several net sources.

" Andrew Marr
If you were an American president, we would know all about your medical history. You were asked in the States about your eyesight, and I think the reason you were asked is because people were wondering whether that would be a reason for standing down at some point. Let me ask you about something else everybody has been talking about – a lot of people … use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of those?
"everybody has been talking about"? If that was the basis of his question, then he had no right to ask it. Very few people had been talking about it outside some rightist nutters on the interwebs.
 
#4
ashie said:
jonwilly said:
This has been reported as the actual words used by several net sources.

" Andrew Marr
If you were an American president, we would know all about your medical history. You were asked in the States about your eyesight, and I think the reason you were asked is because people were wondering whether that would be a reason for standing down at some point. Let me ask you about something else everybody has been talking about – a lot of people … use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of those?
"everybody has been talking about"? If that was the basis of his question, then he had no right to ask it. Very few people had been talking about it outside some rightist nutters on the interwebs.
The author of the rumours has admitted that it was initially speculation based on some things that he had been told. However Gordon's tempers and intrasingence are legendary and do suggest some underlying mental health issues.
 
#5
ashie said:
"everybody has been talking about"? If that was the basis of his question, then he had no right to ask it. Very few people had been talking about it outside some rightist nutters on the interwebs.
Regardless of whether the question should have been asked, why did he not answer it? If he has no other health problems other than his eyesight, why did he not clearly say so?

Actually I do not see any reason why such a question should not be asked. If a health problem affects a Prime Minister's ability to do his job then the public has the right to know that, especially when a General Election is on the horizon.

British politicians have a rather unfortunate habit of forgetting who they are serving, who are paying their wages, and who they are ultimately responsible to.
 
#6
ashie said:
"everybody has been talking about"? If that was the basis of his question, then he had no right to ask it. Very few people had been talking about it outside some rightist nutters on the interwebs.
And now the left leaning BBC are talking about it too. Anyway, what was wrong with Cyclops just saying 'NO', rather than skirting round the issue?
 
#7
"If you were an American president, we would know all about your medical history."

B0llocks.
 
#8
In the past candidates or those with potential for Party Leadership have stepped down when it looked likely that their health could compromise their ability to do the job of PM should that become likely (most recently Heseltine who had heart problems).

Why shouldnt the British People be aware when their PM has some mental issues and is taking drugs to get through it. After all our PM has his finger on the Nuclear trigger. Lets face it, we have seen some bizarre You Tube film this year where Brown appeared to be Hyper while making some form of political announcement. Even Blears commented on it.
 
#9
ashie said:
jonwilly said:
This has been reported as the actual words used by several net sources.

" Andrew Marr
If you were an American president, we would know all about your medical history. You were asked in the States about your eyesight, and I think the reason you were asked is because people were wondering whether that would be a reason for standing down at some point. Let me ask you about something else everybody has been talking about – a lot of people … use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of those?
"everybody has been talking about"? If that was the basis of his question, then he had no right to ask it. Very few people had been talking about it outside some rightist nutters on the interwebs.
Definition: somebody who doesn't agree with my loony leftist policies.

He had every right to ask it - you wouldn't object if it was Cameron being asked the question and he was hooked!
 
#10
I am no fan of Brown, but this is surely a 'medical in confidence' issue. Therefore there is no 'right' to know what medication he may or may not be taking.
 
#11
flipflop said:
I am no fan of Brown, but this is surely a 'medical in confidence' issue. Therefore there is no 'right' to know what medication he may or may not be taking.
I do agree with you flipflop, Marr was out of order as there was so much else for him to ask.
 
#12
pimpernel said:
flipflop said:
I am no fan of Brown, but this is surely a 'medical in confidence' issue. Therefore there is no 'right' to know what medication he may or may not be taking.
I do agree with you flipflop, Marr was out of order as there was so much else for him to ask.
Disagree. If someone is running the country we are entitled to know whether they suffering from any illness, or taking any medication, which might impair their ability to perform their job. Which, given that in Gordo's case, this may involve pressing the big red button marked 'end of the world', seems eminently sensible.

David Owen (ex Lab and Lib MP) has written a very interesting book, and several articles on the subect: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/30/politicians-health-honesty

An article published in 2006 found that 29% of all US presidents suffered mental illness while in office, and that 49% had exhibited features suggestive of mental illness at some time in their lives. These are higher percentages than one would expect when comparing with the general population. Between 1906 and 2006, seven presidents were judged to have been mentally ill while in office: Theodore Roosevelt (bipolar disorder), William Howard Taft (breathing-related sleep disorder), Woodrow Wilson (major depressive disorder), Calvin Coolidge (major depressive disorder), Herbert Hoover (major depressive disorder), Lyndon B Johnson (bipolar disorder) and Richard Nixon (alcohol abuse)

Mental illness has affected many heads of government in other countries, too. Some have been able to hide their depression from people close to them, and from the public. But it should be an acknowledged duty of every political leader to be open about their health. To campaign in the knowledge they are suffering from an illness that could impair their capacity to lead means they do not have the quality of honesty a nation has the right to expect of its leaders. Whereas, if voters are given the facts independently about a candidate's health, it is up to them to determine whether a particular illness is a disqualification for office.
 
#13
Unfortunately medical in confidence doesn't really apply here. We, the great unwashed, are his employers and, as such, we are entitled to know any material facts that may affect his ability to govern us. Don't forget that he also had the opportunity to dispel any malicious rumours with regards to his health which he singularly failed to take. He may feel that he is not obliged to answer such questions and not answer on principle that he doesn't need to answer or give credence to such questions but, as HM The Queen found out to her cost over not flying the Palace flag at half mast after Diana, failure to address an issue can be read in a multitude of different ways and mostly not in a good way.
 
#14
P2000 said:
An article published in 2006 found that 29% of all US presidents suffered mental illness while in office, and that 49% had exhibited features suggestive of mental illness at some time in their lives. These are higher percentages than one would expect when comparing with the general population. Between 1906 and 2006, seven presidents were judged to have been mentally ill while in office: Theodore Roosevelt (bipolar disorder), William Howard Taft (breathing-related sleep disorder), Woodrow Wilson (major depressive disorder), Calvin Coolidge (major depressive disorder), Herbert Hoover (major depressive disorder), Lyndon B Johnson (bipolar disorder) and Richard Nixon (alcohol abuse)

Mental illness has affected many heads of government in other countries, too. Some have been able to hide their depression from people close to them, and from the public. But it should be an acknowledged duty of every political leader to be open about their health. To campaign in the knowledge they are suffering from an illness that could impair their capacity to lead means they do not have the quality of honesty a nation has the right to expect of its leaders. Whereas, if voters are given the facts independently about a candidate's health, it is up to them to determine whether a particular illness is a disqualification for office.
I'm amazed that Ronald Regan isn't mentioned but not surprised that George Dubbya wasn't as he didn't have a big enough brain for a mental health problem to have any significance.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
The mental health of the PM is of interest to us all - the UK is the only nuclear power which has, at some stage in its firing process, a single point of decision. Almost the entire chain is dual-key - except for the start. The first decision is made by the PM alone. If he is not of sound mind it is of concern to the entire world, not just the UK electorate.

Meanwhile, as pointed out elsewhere, it seems OK for the Daily Mirror to make continued accusations against Cameron that he is a 'druggie', but entirely unfair to make the same about the PM. Here we see the hypocrisy and double-standards at the heart of socialism, as usual.

And, of course, it is clear – if you read the conversation at the top of the thread – that the PM did not deny the use of tranquilisers. He simply avoided the question – so it still needs to be asked, and asked clearly, every time he is interviewed, until he answers.
 
#16
doc80905 said:
ashie said:
"everybody has been talking about"? If that was the basis of his question, then he had no right to ask it. Very few people had been talking about it outside some rightist nutters on the interwebs.
And now the left leaning BBC are talking about it too. Anyway, what was wrong with Cyclops just saying 'NO', rather than skirting round the issue?
Quite. If he hasn't been taking anti-depressants or other pills then it was a golden opportunity to score a minor political point by dismissing the claims unconditionally. And to imply, in classic Zanu tradition and an oh-so-hurt voice, that the whole thing was some childish Tory (or even rightist nutter) plot to subvert the Saviour before his Ministry is fulfilled.

By wriggling and prevaricating (admittedly his usual MO) he has simply added the worst kind of fuel to the fire, and handed the opposition an early Christmas present (whether they choose to use it, given the inevitable hypocritical howls of "shame" from Labour, is perhaps another matter). And Internet speculation, some of it coming even from non-nutters, will only have been encouraged by this latest shifty performance. Whatever his myriad other failings, Brown is politically astute enough to have recognized this real danger, but wouldn't - or couldn't - do anything to avoid it, probably calculating that an outright lie would, given the circle of knowledge, be exposed sooner rather than later. I, for one, am now convinced where before I was merely suspicious: there is something wrong with the Prime Minister's head (other than the Marxist tripe that's filled it for the last 40 years).

However, before he's gently led away, Gord is still capable of witticisms (unintentional, to be sure, but all the funnier for that). I (slightly) paraphrase an exchange between him and Jim Naughtie on Radio 4 earlier today:

JN "The Sun has deserted you."

GB "It's not newspapers that decide elections."

JN "They're talking about their readers."

GB (with emphasis) "I'm talking about people."

Nice one, Gord - at last you got something right!
 
#17
Next time we would hear something like this

Andrew Marr
If you were an American president, we would know all about your medical history. You were asked in the States about your usage of drugs. Have you been a drug taker? Do you tried to hide this fact? Would you try to legalise dugs in the UK?
 
#18
Over a million people have access to the database containing NHS Care Records - e.g. GPs, GPs receptionists, Social Workers, GUM Clinics, Pharmacists etc. so someone should be able to leak Cyclop's record.

After all, it would be unlikely for Cyclops to have exempted his own details from a database that ZNL introduced for the rest of us wouldn't it? :roll:
 
#19
I see he has thrown his teddies again:

An angry Gordon Brown turned on the media today as his fightback ran into trouble.

The Prime Minister lost his cool on live TV and tried to walk off at the end of an interview while still connected to a microphone.

At one stage he told Sky News's Adam Boulton: “You are sounding a bit like a political propagandist yourself.” At another point, he was in such a hurry to leave a BBC interview that he stood between the startled presenter and the camera.

He said Boulton, Sky's political editor, seemed to “obsess” about the Labour leadership and snapped: “You have not given me the chance to talk about the economy.”

Mr Brown's angry morning was fuelled by learning that The Sun has withdrawn its support for Labour. Today, during a round of interviews on Sky, GMTV and the BBC, he kept complaining he was not being allowed to make his case or answer questions in full.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...gordon-brown-turns-on-media-in-tv-meltdown.do

Now, I do agree that interviewers have an unpleasant tendancy to talk over the interviewees. Nonetheless, if this man is trying to campaign for a fourth term in office and he cannot control his temper when being asked a few taxing questions it does not bode well for the future. As a previous poster said, he is known for his intransigence.

This smacks to me of a bully being put on the spot and finding he does not like it very much. (Likely for Adam Boulton there were no telephones at hand to throw).
 
#20
jarrod248 said:
Ex_ex said:
Over a million people have access to the database containing NHS Care Records - e.g. GPs, GPs receptionists, Social Workers, GUM Clinics, Pharmacists etc. so someone should be able to leak Cyclop's record.

After all, it would be unlikely for Cyclops to have exempted his own details from a database that ZNL introduced for the rest of us wouldn't it? :roll:
I imagine he would see a Psychiatrist privately. There will be no record. If he is on MAOI's a GP wouldn't start them.
You can opt out of the database by the way - I have just get in touch with your practice manager. If you don't opt out then you are in it.
So Cyclop's psychiatrist wouldn't need to notify his GP about his medical condition then Jarrod?

If the psychiatrist recommends drug treatment surely the GP would become involved eventually?

Yes I know it's possible to opt out, what I meant was that Cyclops wouldn't have done so because he knows that having his details on an enormous database that every Tom, Dick and Harry can access is a good idea. :)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
acp290885 ARRSE: Site Issues 6
ticklishrodent ARRSE: Site Issues 3
Whiskybreath ARRSE: Site Issues 3

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top