Esther Crawley talk at TEDxBristol, Thurs 2nd Bristol - "Disrupting Your View Of ME"

Esther12 said:
Could timelines have been different for posh people back then? They were up to all sorts. Wikipedia said:



Probably worth being extra cautious with stuff like this.
Click to expand...

Yes they could have been different and 'scholarship' might have meant something different back then. My purpose in posting this is that Crawley clearly states in her TED Talk that her Grandfather gave up his scholarship to Oxford. She doesn't in any way qualify what she says when, if wiki is correct in this instance, he did attend and graduate from Oxford. The audience would assume from her statement (didn't we all??) that he sadly never made it to Oxford as he was too busy 'doing the right thing'. That is extremely disingenuous on her part imo. The question would be, in a similar circumstance where any of us were planning a talk about anything but wanted to use an example from our family history, would we be cavalier about the way the facts were presented? I don't know about others but I would be forensically honest.
 
The real test comes if claims are repeated once it is known that there are doubts as to their authenticity.

In fairness, family circumstances may arise in which rather jumbled narratives may occur, and be accepted at face value, until questioned.
 
Skycloud said:
Why do we need to know? Seems a distraction to me
Click to expand...

Because honesty matters. We know through many examples that Crawley is economical with the truth (think the Armenian photograph and the 'tennis player girl' photograph and her use of the Sunday Times threat mockup) . Yet on the other hand she is happy to use that economy not only to the detriment of patients but to besmirch commentators and critics by accusing them of libel against her (ie she accuses others of lying). She has started a little dance whereby her false accusations are part of a trend, the trend being her inability to distinguish fact from fiction (imo). Being able to illustrate that her own words, recorded in a public setting (and therefore unable to be spun at a later to date to mean something else) aren't capable of withstanding interrogation adds to the weight of evidence that her word is not her bond and her word cannot be relied upon. I think illustrating this is exceptionally important imo.
 
chrisb said:
The real test comes if claims are repeated once it is known that there are doubts as to their authenticity.

In fairness, family circumstances may arise in which rather jumbled narratives may occur, and be accepted at face value, until questioned.
Click to expand...

Yes family history can be jumbled I agree. But to use a jumble in a public talk isn't acceptable imo.

She has already repeated claims that are known to be inauthentic..ie her use of the mocked up ST threat. In fact after the TED X talk I believe the person who owns the copyright Tweeted to chastise her yet again, having already tweeted in the first instance to complain that she had used it inappropriately, out of context and without permission. Please correct me if that isn't quite right.
 
Lilpink said:
Being able to illustrate that her own words, recorded in a public setting (and therefore unable to be spun at a later to date to mean something else) aren't capable of withstanding interrogation adds to the weight of evidence that her word is not her bond and her word cannot be relied upon. I think illustrating this is exceptionally important imo.
Click to expand...
Ok I see why you are keen.
 
I think that there's good reason to be extra cautious on family-matters though, especially if there's any doubt. "They falsely accused me of fabricating the sacrifices my grand-father made in the war, despite a record showing that what I said was true" would not be a good look. When there are clear problems with her work, and the way she tries to smear her critics, I'd focus on that stuff rather than risk having any discussion about it being side-tracked but issues that are less useful for us.

In ted talks, people do tend to simplify the narrative, so I think that's just accepted anyway.
 
In ted talks, people do tend to simplify the narrative, so I think that's just accepted anyway.[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree. My feeling is that there is little doubt she was economical with the truth. But best to leave it lie there. I'm sure she will grace us with more fact checking opportunities in the near future.
 
Esther12 said:
I think that there's good reason to be extra cautious on family-matters though, especially if there's any doubt. "They falsely accused me of fabricating the sacrifices my grand-father made in the war, despite a record showing that what I said was true" would not be a good look. When there are clear problems with her work, and the way she tries to smear her critics, I'd focus on that stuff rather than risk having any discussion about it being side-tracked but issues that are less useful for us.

In ted talks, people do tend to simplify the narrative, so I think that's just accepted anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree, though I understand why people get caught up in that detail. It's not for me as it seems unnecessary and may risk looking a bit stalkerish.
 
Lilpink said:
Crawley insists her grandfather 'gave up a scholarship to Oxford' which may or may not be true, but it implies that he gave up the opportunity to study and graduate from Oxford which is certainly (as certainly as Wiki can be assumed to be) not true. If this entry is correct not only did he attend Oxford but he graduated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Verity


It was Hugh Verity's wife who gave up the scholarship at Oxford and possible glittering career to get married and have children instead - it would appear Crawley doesn't even know her own family history! https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/14/wartime-marriage-love-in-a-harsh-climate
Click to expand...

So Hugh Verity is Crawleys grandfather and his wife gave up a scholarship at Oxford?
 
Esther12 said:
Does she say HV is her grandfather? I've forgotten where that came from.
Click to expand...

I dont know I am just trying to understand what Lilpink is saying about Crawleys grandfather and a turned down scholarship to Oxford.

I think its being suggested by Lilpink that Hugh Verity is Crawleys grandfather and Hugh Veritys wife turned down a scholarship at Oxford and is therefore questioning Crawleys claim that it was her grandfather that didn't take the offer of the scholarship to Oxford.

I don't know where the claim originates from that Hugh Verity is Crawleys grandfather as I cant bear to watch anything Crawley says.
 
To revert briefly to the theme of the alleged e-mail featuring on the front of the Sunday Times Magazine it would be interesting to know what meaning Crawley attributed to the phrase "Time is running for out (sic) you all".

It is hard to see it as threatening. Puzzling, perhaps.

EDIT The matter becomes more confusing still as there is a discrepancy between the images of the Sunday Times as illustrated on our Science Library forum and that shown on Crawley's slide. The library one shows "Time is running for out you all". Crawley's shows "Time is running out for you all".

An error might have been seen by the newspaper and amended for later print runs. But even that would tell us something about the image.

FURTHER EDIT As the background colours of the words "out" and "for" retain their positions but swap the superimposed words this change is probably between different editions. It just proves how easy it is for newspapers to manipulate images.
 
Last edited:
chrisb said:
To revert briefly to the theme of the alleged e-mail featuring on the front of the Sunday Times Magazine it would be interesting to know what meaning Crawley attributed to the phrase "Time is running for out (sic) you all".

It is hard to see it as threatening. Puzzling, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Probably got characterised as a bomb threat. Tick Tock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom