Regretably Booker has made some serious errors on two of his latest articles.The first was his hero worshipping article on Marta Andreasen where he airbrushed out of the picture that prior to being suspended and then sacked by the EU she had also been suspended from a previous job at the OECD.As the point of his complaint was that she was picked on by the EU for threatening to expose accounting problems-so she says-the fact that she had been got rid of at another internatiuonal organization with nothing to do with the EU was relevant and hushed up by Booker.
Now he carelessly comparesthe Michael Brown case at the Lib Dems with UKIP's taking money from impermissible donors. Again he has brushed a lot of the facts out of the story.
All this is worrying as it undermines his credentials-what has he left out of the global warming story?
Well, blow me, Marta Andreasen must be a wrong 'un then. She "had been suspended from a previous job at the OECD.
She joined the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1998, where she reported serious problems with its accounting system, raised her concerns with the management and suggested ways of reforms. After initial resistance, Arthur Andersen were assigned for an outside analysis. In August 2000, their report described the OECD's internal accounting systems as outdated and inadequate. Mrs Andreasen, however, was suspended from her job for 15 months.
Accountancy Age stated in October 2003 that Mrs Andreasen's spell at the OECD ended with "her bid to take the organisation to the European Court of Justice claiming her human rights had been violated as she had not been given a 'fair trial' following allegations of racism, and that she raised 'undue doubts' and unsupported 'alarmist allegations' in relation to OECD accounts."
The OECD never confirmed allegations of racism were part of the cause for her suspension. Andreasen had already dismissed those in Accountancy in October 2000 ("Andreasen claims allegations against her emerged only after she had raised concerns about the accounts").
You try to imply that the reason for her suspension was her wrongdoing. Given her history, it seems she was the victim of corruption at the OECD too.
You don't supply any evidence and you twist things to make it seem that it is a fact that her suspension should be seen as a mark against her!
No, it's you who are the wrong 'un.
All this is worrying as it undermines [Booker's] credentials-what has he left out of the global warming story?
As we see, it does nothing of the sort. You'd be well advised to look to your own credentials. What a creepy distorting little shit you are.
Is your name Peter Mandelson?