Professor Peter Ridd challenges James Cook University sacking, page-143

  1. 9,391 Posts.
    Goold -  judges comments

    220.  The hypocrisy is breathtaking. On one hand, the University is finding that Professor Ridd has breached the Code of Conduct in that he has made public a number of items to do with the disciplinary process. On the other hand, he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct in that he has not referred to all of that material when he has made this particular statement.

    221.  The irony is even more spectacular when one considers that, in his original email to the journalist in 2016, Professor Ridd took the institutions to task for being misleading regarding the use of photographs. It seems the University found no problem with the use of those photographs because there was a footnote that led to the Wachenfeld article.

    My comments underlined.  THIS is exactly what RIDD was saying all along.  JCU are using poor quality data and being mischievous.  He has been vindicated and still Jthe CU science on the GBR health is CRAP science all designed to rake in more money

    222.  And yet when Professor Ridd pointed out that there was a hyperlink to all of the 2017 disciplinary process material (which would include the 19 September 2017 letter and the subsequent final censure), he is found guilty of a Code of Conduct violation for being misleading. One could be forgiven for thinking that the university was more concerned with the splinter in the eye of Professor Ridd whilst ignoring the plank in their own.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.