Yesterday, in the Herald, Professor Bauld is headlined as saying something like this:

Scientists have ‘no idea’ where the evidence for some Scottish Government lockdown decisions is coming from.

She did say something like that but only well into the session and only after she was persuaded by the wheedling questions from Alberto Costa (Conservative), pressing her to think of just one example where the Scottish Government’s decision-making had been less transparent.

After numerous earlier statements praising the Scottish Government’s transparency by her and by the other witnesses, Professor Bauld, hesitating, came up with a concern about the timing details of particular elements of the loosening of the lock-down.

With respect, this looked to me, like a classic case of the otherwise highly intelligent and honest academic’s admirable lack of political intelligence when being probed by an experienced and devious professional.

So, while Bauld did say what Rodger chose to open with, that does not in anyway, meaningfully or accurately capture the essence of what was being said by Professor Bauld and by the other three academics, in this meeting and it is that essence that the reader should have, unless the writer has an agenda to deceive them.

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a9db3cd7-ad46-4d90-95fc-2c4221687c80

Now, I seem to remember that this has happened before, recently. In a previous example of dissembling, or bias by selection and by omission, Rodger, was attacked by some angry twitterati and complained of abusive responses.

I can find no trace of the exchange and while I condemn any such behaviour, it does seem strange that Rodger should be indulging in the same kind of dishonesty that might trigger further anger and perhaps, more inexcusable, abusive, comment. It looks like the kind of petulant, stubborn, behaviour, parents will recognise.

Or does Rodger invite abusive comment to further promote herself? It’s just business?