‘Not a shred of evidence’

The man commissioned to write a review of UK banking governance, Sir David Walker, was interviewed on the radio and asked why he had not recommended naming names of bank employees earning over £1million. He said he had carried out research and had found ‘not a shred of evidence’ that naming names would be constructive. As noted in previous posts (see below Politics, Power, belief and Evidence) Walker is using the word ‘evidence’ here as a way of closing down discussion. People submitting to the review were self-selecting, so if he was unable to find ‘evidence’ in his submissions of reasons why naming names might be a good idea he could also ask himself about his sample. What kind of people are they and why might they have the opinions they have? Other countries do publish the names of bankers earning big money. This might, for some researchers, also count as evidence.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “‘Not a shred of evidence’

  1. Richard Veryard

    Interesting that he should have chosen the word “shred”, a word commonly associated with the destruction of evidence as well as being a nickname for the person who oversaw the destruction of shareholder value in a certain Scottish bank.

    Reply
  2. Chris Mowles Post author

    Hi Richard,
    In another article I see he had used the word ‘scintilla’, as in ‘not a scintilla of evidence’. Obviously he is feeling a bit defensive.
    C

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s