Best Of

I am not sure I can be in the same party as Robert Jenrick.

If the party wants to go down the Jenrick route then it deserves to die.

Just in case anyone was naive enough to take his comments last night as throwaway chat at a Tory dinner, he comes up today demanding that we TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.

We're now in a polity where the parties of the right are so hard over to the right that they have to compete with each other about who can stoke division and hate the hardest.

Sorry mate, the party is cooked. Because even if Badenoch is ousted you're getting *that* as leader, after whom there will be little left.

I wonder if he leaked the 'white face' stuff himself. As leaks go it only seems to have boosted his image as the striding colossus of division and fear.

Certainly being on the front page with a message that's on brand will not be causing him pain and distress.

There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.

How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?

I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.

Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.

I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)

Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.

There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.

Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.

Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.

I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.

That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.

Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.

It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.

Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.

I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.

I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."

How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?

They're doctors as well, aren't they ?

No, most on the GMC are not.

Though isnt the interim judgement that she should not be suspended from practice pending the final judgement?

It is perfectly possible for her Trust to suspend her in the meantime if she has breached Trust policy.

Certainly that's what I would expect at my Trust.

Sorry, Foxy.
It was a flip comment not expecting a serious reply.

(FWIW, my own experience of doctors ranges from the exceptionally good, to the pretty damn bad.)

You mean that doctors are human and vary just like other humans!! Who knew?

OT but for anyone who is still on Windows 10 - Microsoft have suddenly given the option of a years' free further security updates.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/extended-security-updates

Bit late for me - my new Win 11 PC is all assembled at the shop ...

The catch there is that it mandates a Microsoft Account for the computer login.

If there’s any serious security issues with W10 in the next year, Microsoft are going to have little choice but to deal with it. The W10 userbase is still way bigger than W11, as people now routinely keep a home PC for 6-7 years rather than 3-4 a decade ago.

Quite right. I have one anyway, but how it works for other cases I have no idea. I found this quite useful. Idiot level but that's what I need.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/windows-10-is-losing-security-support-in-october-aZV723o24RP9?utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=4661417-C_TN_EM__20251007&mi_u=219607490&mi_ecmp=C_TN_EM__20251007#extend

"Irishman Aiden Minnis, fighting for Russia in the special military operation zone, dramatically burned his British passport with the phrase "Britain, go to hell!", accompanying it with a burst from an automatic rifle."

https://x.com/Beefeater_Fella/status/1975137216050446690

Obviously a proud patriot.

"Mr Minnis is a former drug addict who was also previously a member of the far-right National Front party during his time in the UK.
In 2008 he was jailed for 4 years and 3 months for an unprovoked racially assaulting on a man in the street"

He’ll fit in well in the Russian army. For a week or two anyway.

Life expectancy on the front line now said to be 12 days for Russians, they’re doing stupid stuff like amassing troops and equipment on the wrong side of the river near Lyman, and only then trying to build the bridge across. The bridge never gets finished before it gets the Storm Shadow treatment, meanwhile half an army are sitting ducks for Ukranian artillery.

That must be an interesting judgement.

How much time/material do you let the Russians utilise before you take it out? The risk being they complete it. I’d probably go at 70% but could see the argument for more

That sounds about right.

While taking out the bridge is clearly important, the more valuable target is the bridge-building equipment and the men doing the building. It’s a specialised task that uses rare machinery to construct the bridge then tow it into place, so you want to take it out just as they’re nearing the end of the construction process.

Here’s a good video (17m) about the failed attack across the river.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNe5Z9AiN3M

There’s a pretty disturbing report in today’s Times, about medical staff who post anti-Semitic drivel on social media, without any form of disciplinary sanction. So, Dr. Ramah Aladwen described Royal Free Hospital as a “Jewish supremacy cesspit”, and a picture of the Chief Rabbi with the caption, “Rabbi genocide”, and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public.

How could any Jewish patient expect a professional service from this doctor?

I’m quite sure I would be sanctioned by Solicitors Regulation Authority, if I did similarly.

Particularly the reference to a hospital. I think public sector workers should be allowed to hold public opinions but not when it undermines the service they are providing.

I've not read up on the case, but I presume the prosecution did not present any evidence that the service she was providing had been undermined. Their case does not appear to have involved any actual examples of patients receiving substandard care. (I'm not saying they made the right decision, just trying to explain what might have been their reasoning.)

Understood. I have not read up either, but I think we'd agree that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service.

There's no way I'd trust this individual if I were Jewish and that's enough to undermine my confidence in the whole institution, thereby restricting my access to healthcare.

Conversely, if he'd expressed considered and sober public opinions about the situation in Gaza then I don't think that would be constitute a reason for him to be suspended.

Dr Aladwen is a she. Reading further, a complaint was made to the GMC, who decided there was insufficient reason to do anything and closed the file. A new complaint was then made and the recent decision by the MPTS was only on an interim order relating to that (allowing her to practice while this complaint is investigated), so she hasn't yet had the final outcome and we don't know what they will decide.

I would not agree "that perception is just as important as actually providing a substandard service." I do agree that perception matters, but I think there would be a much more serious case against her if there was evidence she had provided substandard service to a patient because they were Jewish (or indeed if there was evidence she had provided substandard service for whatever reason, deliberately or accidentally). Deliberately providing substandard service would have a much, much higher chance of leading to a suspension.

That can also be really, really hard to prove. Firstly, you need to prove substandard service, which as you say is difficult enough. Then you need to prove that it is because they are Jewish, which is really difficult unless they are exceptionally stupid about their bias.

Which is why this sort of talk is so detrimental. If I was Jewish, there's no way I'd want to be treated by a doctor who was so obviously (and self-statedly) biased.

It's difficult, yes, but it's not impossible. A large proportion of cases that go to the MPTS begin with a complaint about poor practise. There is a whole system set up to adjudge and investigate possible poor practise.

Moreover, if there has been poor practise, that alone can be sufficient reason for further investigation and/or temporary suspension while the investigation is ongoing and/or a final judgement of temporary suspension or permanent removal from the register. You wouldn't have to prove that it was because the patient was Jewish. These sorts of cases will often present several lines of concern, so, if such evidence existed, the case would go here's evidence of poor practise and here's evidence of anti-Semitic comments.

I am unconvinced that this adequately covers the rubbish she said.

I haven't read the article as I don't have access to the Times, but from the initial post above: " and went before a tribunal which ruled that her words would not “alarm or concern” the public."

How do you think a tribunal came to the judgement that her words would not cause alarm and concern to the public?

They're doctors as well, aren't they ?

No, most on the GMC are not.

Though isnt the interim judgement that she should not be suspended from practice pending the final judgement?

It is perfectly possible for her Trust to suspend her in the meantime if she has breached Trust policy.

Certainly that's what I would expect at my Trust.