Yes, indeed. And to be fair, sometimes the pots calling the kettles black last less time than a lettuce I am told.
Is there any suggestion that false articles were lodged. Isn't it more likely that the articles lodged in 2014 were exactly as intended but that...
Not actually sure about the this day and age. It seems to be all the rage to accuse other people of your own crimes. A number of politicians are...
That seems relevant. It is looking very unlikely that the '2014' version at CH was a mistaken 'earlier' version then.
My next thought is that it doesn't make much sense to go to the effort to change and re-file Articles in 2014 if the result is more or less...
It isn't the draft of 2013 because we have seen that and it has a section (a) for payments for services. I am assuming that 2007 was the last...
I am not seeing much change other than a 'rationalisation' of allowed payment text (includes item 4) that includes cutting out payments for services.
I may have missed this but when the 2014 Articles version was adopted by Special Resolution was the change in section 28 we have seen the only...
It is not normal practice. I may be wrong but it seems a flagrant misuse of editorial powers and the editor in chief should resign. We were told...
No. There are one or two papers claiming that but the data don't look very convincing to me at least. This seems to be the usual sort of oversold...
It was at that point that I began to understand the depth of the hypocrisy in the Cochrane project.
I contacted Chalmers around the time I reviewed a version of the Larun review that never saw the light of day, expressing concerns about conflicts...
Isn't this just a list of things those consulted have come up with, rather than any coherent statement of policy or opinion? It seems to say that...
So my reading of the first and third versions is that directors can be paid for services under section (a). 'Normal charitable trustee' duties are...
Separate names with a comma.
