3 posts • joined 26 Feb 2008
"Come clean" is just stupid
First, best wishes for Steve's health. That's what matters.
The article is pretty good but ended badly for two reasons.
"Come clean" assumes Steve has not come clean. Who knows? Is the author an oncologist with some inside knowledge? Why the scepticism?
Further, what does "come clean" mean when you're dealing with cancer? Oncologists deal with probabilities such as "survival at 5 years", cancer-grading, and so on. I'm afraid there is no "clean", at least not in the sense the author demands. Some cancers are 100% lethal, others 100% survivable. Metastatic cancers are not always fatal. This particular one seems to fall somewhere between the extremes.
The cancer has, we hope, not returned but that might not be entirely positive if other factors are bad. The cancer may have returned but likewise that may not be entirely negative. We are dealing with odds relating to the disease, the treatment, the side effects and the individual. A simple tabloid answer either way is not possible.
During treatment there are times when you simply have to wait and see.
So, thanks for news, and the article, but save the accusations and demands for another case and another time.
@ Martin T. thx
If publication is planned that seems fair enough, but...
>>Steinberg said so far only one organisation – Parliament – has refused to reply to a request made through the system: "They said, we can't send you this information as you are going to put it on the internet."
>>The reply mentioned parliamentary copyright as its reason.
...they seem to be claiming some other exclusion, and the mention of copyright is disturbing. Copyright is the protection against infringement, not the FOI... if they use the FOI to protect IP it broadens its scope.
Anywhat, this is all second-hand tosh and I'm not fully up to speed on FOI, but I am getting concerned about the increasing creativity of H M Gov in coming up with reasons for refusal.
Copyright is not an FOI exclusion
AFAIK... copyright is copyright but that's no reason not to respond - as required by the Act - to a valid request.
The Act specifies the reasons allowed for a refusal... is copyright one of them?
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- Hands on Satisfy my scroll: El Reg gets claws on Windows 8.1 spring update