Given that Addenbrokes is bleedin' miles from anywhere that anyone sensible should want to be, damn all I should say.
(snip)
Hmmm, Mr Llama. For the second time in two days I sadly have to call you out on something. Parking's been bad on streets neighbouring Addenbrookes for years, e.g.:
Addenbrookes is very much becoming a destination in itself, especially with the biomedical complexes being built (wrongly, IMHO) on the campus, which will include AstraZeneca's new headquarters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Biomedical_Campus
There has also been massive development in the area (e.g. the lamentable Trumpington Meadows), and the local (Tory) county council's crazy parking fees are not exactly helping the situation. http://www.trumpingtonmeadows.com/
Mr. Jessop,
You have no need to be sad about calling me on anything. Indeed I am always pleased to be put right especially by someone who knows what he is talking about. When I went to visit an, alas now deceased friend, in Addenbrokes a couple of years back I don't recall any parking problems, but I accept my memory may be at fault, and I still think of it as the being in the back of beyond.
I must still ask the question though whether charges, accompanied by the inevitable fines, are the correct way to regulate hospital car parking.
There may be hospitals that have specific problems, but probably not too many. Any hospital that has enough land to have a car park is probably too far from anywhere people want to be. For those that are in that situation is there no other option than charges and fines?
It sounds a bit unlikely that everything would be one or the other. In any case there must be cases where you wouldn't provide a car park if you couldn't pay for some of it by charging.
Presumably what happens if you make a rule that they can't charge is that the hospitals sell off their car parks to a private company, says, "Sorry, we don't provide parking", and the private company charges the patients to park there instead.
It might come as a shock to you, but hospitals have a function that is not wholly economic. They are actually there to treat sick people, so selling off land and so being able to say to patients and visitors, "Nothing to do with us", may not come high on their priority list.
A small example, The Royal Sussex County Hospital is on a very small site in the middle of Brighton it has very little land to spare and car-parking is at a premium, in reality non-existent. Nonetheless, the oncology unit has a small car park of its own. When my wife was being treated there the deal was you rolled up to the barrier, pushed the intercom button and told the chap who you were and what your business was, if your name was on the list (as visitor or a patient) the barrier went up if it wasn't you got told to piss off. Funnily enough it worked.
Now, for that chap to sit on the end of the intercom checking his lists cost. Probably not much more than a minimum wage job, but then there was the cost of making sure the data he was working from was up to date, but we are still not talking huge sums, not least because that data is already available as far as patients and their location is concerned.
So really, maybe this populist idea that people want because they are too ignorant to understand is actually down to well paid administrators not taking the trouble to think things through.
Quite, Mr L. Can be done, but there's a cost. And that cost comes out of the general budget.
People have been warning about Saudi funding of mosques and preacher schools for 30 years.
Well you know why. Lab/Lib/Con party has been poisoned by self induced Political Correctness. This has left the UK open to subversion from within. Sadly most of the West suffers from the same malady.
"Yes, the absence of a draw option has markedly changed the way we all play and made deadlocks much harder. Only question is whether we'll EVER finish, since when anyone puts a nose in front everyone pounces on him. Now in 1918 and no clear winner in sight."
Full respect Nick, but the battlefield does seem to be changing and the weakest is getting nudged back. If it were possible to have a clean market on Diplomacy my money would be riding on Andy Cooke at this point. He will probably be very upset that I have said that and I guess he will be bringing his doll of me out of the cupboard ready for the pins as soon as he reads this. If I am absent from these forums over the next few days you know why - Cooke witchcraft.
"Yes, the absence of a draw option has markedly changed the way we all play and made deadlocks much harder. Only question is whether we'll EVER finish, since when anyone puts a nose in front everyone pounces on him. Now in 1918 and no clear winner in sight."
Full respect Nick, but the battlefield does seem to be changing and the weakest is getting nudged back. If it were possible to have a clean market on Diplomacy my money would be riding on Andy Cooke at this point. He will probably be very upset that I have said that and I guess he will be bringing his doll of me out of the cupboard ready for the pins as soon as he reads this. If I am absent from these forums over the next few days you know why - Cooke witchcraft.
" I'm sure that post has an A missing, use your spell check Roger."
So we don't like fat bald and Scottish now??
Oh it's not a case of not liking Roger, I've never had the fun of meeting JK so the only time I'm seen him is his avatar where he looks like a skinny 12 year old. In the event he's Gregor Fishers double,
Quite, Mr L. Can be done, but there's a cost. And that cost comes out of the general budget.
Fair enough, Mr Cole, there will be a cost . How much of a cost? I think we were talking here the other day that the profit from car parking in one set of hospitals in Surrey amounted to 0.6% of the budget. A half-way decent management team could find that without breaking a sweat. Of course, we are talking also about adding a cost so further savings must be found elsewhere. Perhaps we are talking may be 1% overall. Come on, the senior executives of these NHS trusts have benefit packages running into the millions if they can find 1% of the budget then they do not deserve to their jobs and salaries.
Quite, Mr L. Can be done, but there's a cost. And that cost comes out of the general budget.
Fair enough, Mr Cole, there will be a cost . How much of a cost? I think we were talking here the other day that the profit from car parking in one set of hospitals in Surrey amounted to 0.6% of the budget. A half-way decent management team could find that without breaking a sweat. Of course, we are talking also about adding a cost so further savings must be found elsewhere. Perhaps we are talking may be 1% overall. Come on, the senior executives of these NHS trusts have benefit packages running into the millions if they can find 1% of the budget then they do not deserve to their jobs and salaries.
Even if you can magic up 0.6% of the budget from unspecified management decency it's not obvious that the best thing to spend the money on is always going to be free parking.
Anti-Nazi League. And as someone who spent much of my University free time helping out with organising and campaigning with them I am pretty sure a champagne swilling hypocrite like Roger would not have been said dead with such normal people.
I must still ask the question though whether charges, accompanied by the inevitable fines, are the correct way to regulate hospital car parking.
Okay, let's do a thought experiment with two hospitals I've used fairly extensively in the last year.
Parking at Hinchingbrooke costs £2.50 for the duration of your visit. The car park varies from nearly empty to full-ish, but I've never failed to find a space. They have proved rather keen to hand out free parking labels for future visits, but allegedly are rather good at finding people who have not paid.
It is situated in a village a mile away from the centre of Huntingdon. There is a country park five minutes walk away that costs £2 all day, and which often has between two and (say) ten cars in it, and many more at weekends.
Obviously the car park at the country park is not filling up with overspill from the hospital (at least when I have visited), but if the hospital car park was free, would many of the fit people who use the country park walk from the free hospital car park, reducing the park's income?
Addenbrookes is more complex. The site is massive and busy, but well served by public transport. In particular, there is a new(ish) guided busway and path from the Trumpington Road Park and Ride, a little over a mile away. The county council have recently put an insane pricing policy on the park and ride, meaning that it is even less attractive than before.
If parking at the hospital was free, then people would park there and use the guided bus and other routes to get into town, whose car parks are also rather crazily priced (although not as bad as the P&R). Alternative schemes such as passes stamped may not work very well where the site is so vast, and there is no one point you pass through to get them stamped (e.g. supermarket checkouts).
Basically: whether free parking is valid or not will depend on the hospital, and even then may have wide consequences for the local area and residents.
But as ever, I like to evaluate precedent. It would be interesting to know the Scottish experience of no-fees from the perspective of equivalent hospitals and local residents.
I should think it's clear to most who have read your posts that like your idol Enoch you have a problem with those of a different hue but chacun a son gout as they say in Marseilles
RCS1000 Indeed, but as much of the West also sees slowing demographics the slowing of Chinese population growth will not prevent it from being a first world power, richer than many Western nations, by 2050
Sorry for the late reply, just been to an excellent cookery display and book signing by Mary Berry at the 'Flavours of Herefordshire' Festival!
I should think it's clear to most who have read your posts that like your idol Enoch you have a problem with those of a different hue but chacun a son gout as they say in Marseilles
Surely it would have been quicker to type "I can't".
"Oh it's not a case of not liking Roger, I've never had the fun of meeting JK so the only time I'm seen him is his avatar where he looks like a skinny 12 year old. In the event he's Gregor Fishers double,"
mr Tyndall says (and is cheered by alanbrook) -- ''Looking at Flightpath's list earlier today of those he considers to be 'bad' Right wingers, it appears that anyone who is not in Cameron's inner circle is automatically beyond the pale ''
Your moronic defence both of Cameron and your own flacid excuse for political beliefs really does shame the Tory party. You are the epitome of unthinking party fanaticism that plagues modern politics - the belief in power without principle.
You really should despair as it is your apparent belief in the innate right of the Tory party to power that will be your downfall.
I do find it amusing by the way that you can quote the Autonomous (not 'Autominous' as you write) Mind blog without apparently agreeing with any of the things that they stood for. One thing they were very clear on was their disdain for Cameron and his lack of principle or belief.
A pathetic load of twaddle. Your attacks on Cameron are of course oh so inciteful? Oh of course they are. We bow before your massive intellect. You ignore reality in serving up your remarks. Reality like the sad but stupid behaviour of right wingers who continually do their cause a disservice.
Cameron is to the left of me, but do I want to see PM Miliband? No Would I like to see believeable rightwingers arguing and winning their share of the argument? Yes. Instead, in between shooting themselves in the foot they undermine their own party and hence their prospects. This is the 3rd time I have explained that and you continue to ignore that and invent some Cameron fetish as a defence mechanism..
I find it amusing you can spare the time to pick up on typos instead of the facts behind them. Facts like, I would welcome a referendum on the EU; we need a new arrangemnt; a rational move to the EEA would probably be best; and have every sympathy for Mr Autonomous.
But anyone who pretends that UKIP are not doing their best to live off the back of making racism respectable is delusional. The remarks of Atkinson show just what people surround Farage. (Atkinson who responded to her own supporters complaint by saying they only wanted 'five minutes of fame'.)
I should think it's clear to most who have read your posts that like your idol Enoch you have a problem with those of a different hue but chacun a son gout as they say in Marseilles
A pathetic load of twaddle. Your attacks on Cameron are of course oh so inciteful? Oh of course they are. We bow before your massive intellect. You ignore reality in serving up your remarks. Reality like the sad but stupid behaviour of right wingers who continually do their cause a disservice.
Cameron is to the left of me, but do I want to see PM Miliband? No Would I like to see believeable rightwingers arguing and winning their share of the argument? Yes. Instead, in between shooting themselves in the foot they undermine their own party and hence their prospects. This is the 3rd time I have explained that and you continue to ignore that and invent some Cameron fetish as a defence mechanism..
I find it amusing you can spare the time to pick up on typos instead of the facts behind them. Facts like, I would welcome a referendum on the EU; we need a new arrangemnt; a rational move to the EEA would probably be best; and have every sympathy for Mr Autonomous.
But anyone who pretends that UKIP are not doing their best to live off the back of making racism respectable is delusional. The remarks of Atkinson show just what people surround Farage. (Atkinson who responded to her own supporters complaint by saying they only wanted 'five minutes of fame'.)
Well the examples you give such as Davis or Tebbit certainly do not back up you infantile claims. All I have ever seen you do on here is blindly defend Cameron against any and all attacks, justified or not. You are a party yes man and like all of your ilk the one thing you detest is when it is pointed out to you because you know it undermines any claim to intellectual honesty you might try to make.
UKIP have huge problems - not least the wrong leader - but they at least have some beliefs and some principles. Something both you and the current Tory party clearly lack.
When you stop your continual propagandising on behalf of Cameron then I might start to take you seriously. Until then all you deserve is utter contempt.
You shouldn't get the impotent old dears worked up, they turn bitchy when one links to sites or folk that are actually playing a part in the campaign they're so exercised about. It's even worse when the individual concerned is banned and can't answer back.
Quite, Mr L. Can be done, but there's a cost. And that cost comes out of the general budget.
Fair enough, Mr Cole, there will be a cost . How much of a cost? I think we were talking here the other day that the profit from car parking in one set of hospitals in Surrey amounted to 0.6% of the budget. A half-way decent management team could find that without breaking a sweat. Of course, we are talking also about adding a cost so further savings must be found elsewhere. Perhaps we are talking may be 1% overall. Come on, the senior executives of these NHS trusts have benefit packages running into the millions if they can find 1% of the budget then they do not deserve to their jobs and salaries.
Even if you can magic up 0.6% of the budget from unspecified management decency it's not obvious that the best thing to spend the money on is always going to be free parking.
You have been out of the UK too long. Finding 1% savings in the public sector is not magic. As to where it should be spent again, if anywhere, well doesn't that bring us back to where we started - what people want as opposed to what clever people say they should have.
Quite, Mr L. Can be done, but there's a cost. And that cost comes out of the general budget.
Fair enough, Mr Cole, there will be a cost . How much of a cost? I think we were talking here the other day that the profit from car parking in one set of hospitals in Surrey amounted to 0.6% of the budget. A half-way decent management team could find that without breaking a sweat. Of course, we are talking also about adding a cost so further savings must be found elsewhere. Perhaps we are talking may be 1% overall. Come on, the senior executives of these NHS trusts have benefit packages running into the millions if they can find 1% of the budget then they do not deserve to their jobs and salaries.
Even if you can magic up 0.6% of the budget from unspecified management decency it's not obvious that the best thing to spend the money on is always going to be free parking.
You have been out of the UK too long. Finding 1% savings in the public sector is not magic. As to where it should be spent again, if anywhere, well doesn't that bring us back to where we started - what people want as opposed to what clever people say they should have.
Fair enough, let me rephrase non-snarkily: Even if you can find 0.6% of the budget from savings made somewhere, it's not obvious that the best thing to spend the money on is always going to be free parking.
You shouldn't get the impotent old dears worked up, they turn bitchy when one links to sites or folk that are actually playing a part in the campaign they're so exercised about. It's even worse when the individual concerned is banned and can't answer back.
It is a shame that folks are attacking the way JK looks (as if they are all perfect models of humankind themselves) rather than what he is saying.
You shouldn't get the impotent old dears worked up, they turn bitchy when one links to sites or folk that are actually playing a part in the campaign they're so exercised about. It's even worse when the individual concerned is banned and can't answer back.
It is a shame that folks are attacking the way JK looks (as if they are all perfect models of humankind themselves) rather than what he is saying.
It's more the contrast with his avatar. I suspect most opf us aren't too different to JK in shape.
So the kites are getting flown over working with Assad's regime in the conflict against ISIS.
In reality the Western and regional actors involved know that they have to attack IS in Syria if they want to do this right. In doing so, even if they don't actually work with Assad, the thinking is that it will benefit Bashar by reducing the pressure on him.
This school of thought has its attractions but its not a 100% sure thing that it will benefit Assad. It does damage a major battlefield problem for Assad. In the east where IS have focussed their land grabbing activities, there are few doubts what's left of Syrian army garrisons there are under pressure. Taqba airbase alone is estimated to have anything upto 1000 personnel and Assad can't replace those easily as hos dependency on Iranian and other 3rd party Shia militia imports is increasingly evident. Strategically it rests in an area which offers good road links to the West.. Despite throwing in a brigade of Republican Guards and a severe level of airstrikes to help break the siege IS seem to still have the upper hand.
Whats worse, as his forces carry their own siege around Aleppo, IS has turned up around the city.
Thus the school of thought goes, any Western air action in Syria against IS helps Assad.
Yet the great unknown is whether attacks on IS will also help the rest of the insurgent movement who have long fought on two fronts in many areas, vs Assad's forces and also IS. Taking IS out might also ease pressure on them. The major focus of Assad's and surrogate manpower isn't up against IS in the East, its elsewhere. To that end even if IS gets hit, he may not have huge amounts of resources to suddenly free up.
As it is, there is talk that battlefield targeting intelligence has made its way to Assad through a circuitous route to help Syrian airstrikes in the IS Syrian heartland. Unconfirmed but its unlikely to surprise if it has.
A final note. There is a notably large Iranian force sitting just across the border from the Kurdish region of Iraq, moved into place fairly recently. It hasn't moved across the border but it has a purpose. They also have platoon and company sized formations on the battefield with the Kurds in a couple of areas.
You shouldn't get the impotent old dears worked up, they turn bitchy when one links to sites or folk that are actually playing a part in the campaign they're so exercised about. It's even worse when the individual concerned is banned and can't answer back.
It is a shame that folks are attacking the way JK looks (as if they are all perfect models of humankind themselves) rather than what he is saying.
Point taken but distinguishing man from ball in this case is far from easy.
I must still ask the question though whether charges, accompanied by the inevitable fines, are the correct way to regulate hospital car parking.
If parking at the hospital was free, then people would park there and use the guided bus and other routes to get into town, whose car parks are also rather crazily priced (although not as bad as the P&R). Alternative schemes such as passes stamped may not work very well where the site is so vast, and there is no one point you pass through to get them stamped (e.g. supermarket checkouts).
Basically: whether free parking is valid or not will depend on the hospital, and even then may have wide consequences for the local area and residents.
But as ever, I like to evaluate precedent. It would be interesting to know the Scottish experience of no-fees from the perspective of equivalent hospitals and local residents.
The measures announced (parking for relatives of people who were seriously ill or have to stay in hospital for a long time should be given free parking or reduced charges) are eminently sensible and I think a number of trusts already allow free parking for people who are effectively forced to spend long periods visiting. It does make you wonder why its taken so long
At my DGH, if say an X ray can be prompt (which it has been) I can avoid parking charges since the 1st 30 mins are free. Parking is on exit and not in advance. It already offers concessions. Charges for under 2 hours are £2.80. Between 8PM and 8AM its free (thats FREE). At another community hospital nearby its £2 for 4 hours. At others it is free. I would guess that most people realise there would be no places at all if it was free for all.
It may be a badly managed issue in some places but I cannot help but think it is a manufactured issue.
As to where it should be spent again, if anywhere, well doesn't that bring us back to where we started - what people want as opposed to what clever people say they should have.
Just to add, the divide here isn't necessarily "clever people vs non-clever people" as much as "people who have researched this and thought about it vs people who have thought about it for less than four seconds because they have better things to do".
You can prove this by messing around with polling questions. If you're dealing with an issue people haven't thought about much you'll be able to get wildly different responses by phrasing it differently ("free parking vs patient care?"). A lot of opposition manifesto populism is based on the divide between what the voters will think is a good idea in the (minimal) time they have available to think about something and what gets enacted when people actually look at the problem in depth and make government policy.
You shouldn't get the impotent old dears worked up, they turn bitchy when one links to sites or folk that are actually playing a part in the campaign they're so exercised about. It's even worse when the individual concerned is banned and can't answer back.
It is a shame that folks are attacking the way JK looks (as if they are all perfect models of humankind themselves) rather than what he is saying.
It's more the contrast with his avatar. I suspect most opf us aren't too different to JK in shape.
The appearance part is teasing - the more fundamental part is how he chooses to represent (himself and) the data - "you have to wonder if".....oldest smear by innuendo in the book.
Hey, Mr. Jessup, just to bugger up your carefully crafted model. Most hospital car parks are in my experience on pay and display, because that is the payment model that yields the most profits for the companies to whom the hospitals contract-out their car-parks, on a profit sharing agreement.
So how about this little, true, story. A patient arrives for a follow-up meeting with his consultant. The meeting should not last more than 15 minutes as the patient has made sure to have all the blood-tests etc done the week before. So arriving 15 minutes before the appointment time how long should the patient put into the car park machine. A half-hour should be enough, but allow for delays one hour would surely be plenty. Nope, the consultant was "delayed", patient fined £80, but pay up within fourteen days and we will let you off with just £40. Not the patients fault, but he just got stuffed for forty quid.
People really are getting pissed of with that sort of shit. The hospital has a problem with commuters using its car park, fine sort it out with the commuters - do not take it out on the patients and their relatives. If the big parties want to kill off UKIP then they need to deal with the problems that affect real people, that is to say the little people.
You shouldn't get the impotent old dears worked up, they turn bitchy when one links to sites or folk that are actually playing a part in the campaign they're so exercised about. It's even worse when the individual concerned is banned and can't answer back.
It is a shame that folks are attacking the way JK looks (as if they are all perfect models of humankind themselves) rather than what he is saying.
It's more the contrast with his avatar. I suspect most opf us aren't too different to JK in shape.
The appearance part is teasing - the more fundamental part is how he chooses to represent (himself and) the data - "you have to wonder if".....oldest smear by innuendo in the book.
Oh I'm way beyond that now. frankly aside from a bit of banter there's bugger all left to be said in this campaign. The land has been churned over ad nauseam and neither nats nor unionists have anything new to say, nor anything convincing to each other.
None of the bloggers on here will be convincing each other to change their mind, so it's find the fun to fill in the boredom until the 18th. Just count off the days until the whole tedious exercise is over.
You shouldn't get the impotent old dears worked up, they turn bitchy when one links to sites or folk that are actually playing a part in the campaign they're so exercised about. It's even worse when the individual concerned is banned and can't answer back.
It is a shame that folks are attacking the way JK looks (as if they are all perfect models of humankind themselves) rather than what he is saying.
It's more the contrast with his avatar. I suspect most opf us aren't too different to JK in shape.
The appearance part is teasing - the more fundamental part is how he chooses to represent (himself and) the data - "you have to wonder if".....oldest smear by innuendo in the book.
Just count off the days until the whole tedious exercise is over.
Ever the optimist!
Yes win! - We wuz lied to! It's nae fair! (Currency Union, for starters)
No win! - We wuz lied to! It's nae fair! (Further devolution will never be enough....)
As to where it should be spent again, if anywhere, well doesn't that bring us back to where we started - what people want as opposed to what clever people say they should have.
Just to add, the divide here isn't necessarily "clever people vs non-clever people" as much as "people who have researched this and thought about it vs people who have thought about it for less than four seconds because they have better things to do".
You can prove this by messing around with polling questions. If you're dealing with an issue people haven't thought about much you'll be able to get wildly different responses by phrasing it differently ("free parking vs patient care?"). A lot of opposition manifesto populism is based on the divide between what the voters will think is a good idea in the (minimal) time they have available to think about something and what gets enacted when people actually look at the problem in depth and make government policy.
Spiffing. Tell that to the chap in my example below. That forty quid was more than half his disposable income - for the month!
Christ Edmund! You either need to get back over here or stop pontificating from Tokyo about life in the UK.
As to where it should be spent again, if anywhere, well doesn't that bring us back to where we started - what people want as opposed to what clever people say they should have.
Just to add, the divide here isn't necessarily "clever people vs non-clever people" as much as "people who have researched this and thought about it vs people who have thought about it for less than four seconds because they have better things to do".
You can prove this by messing around with polling questions. If you're dealing with an issue people haven't thought about much you'll be able to get wildly different responses by phrasing it differently ("free parking vs patient care?"). A lot of opposition manifesto populism is based on the divide between what the voters will think is a good idea in the (minimal) time they have available to think about something and what gets enacted when people actually look at the problem in depth and make government policy.
Spiffing. Tell that to the chap in my example below. That forty quid was more than half his disposable income - for the month!
Christ Edmund! You either need to get back over here or stop pontificating from Tokyo about life in the UK.
Your example isn't an argument for "make everything free, it's not like hospitals have anything better to do with the money", it's an argument for "fix the retarded, twattishly-enforced Pay and Display implementations".
As to where it should be spent again, if anywhere, well doesn't that bring us back to where we started - what people want as opposed to what clever people say they should have.
Just to add, the divide here isn't necessarily "clever people vs non-clever people" as much as "people who have researched this and thought about it vs people who have thought about it for less than four seconds because they have better things to do".
You can prove this by messing around with polling questions. If you're dealing with an issue people haven't thought about much you'll be able to get wildly different responses by phrasing it differently ("free parking vs patient care?"). A lot of opposition manifesto populism is based on the divide between what the voters will think is a good idea in the (minimal) time they have available to think about something and what gets enacted when people actually look at the problem in depth and make government policy.
Spiffing. Tell that to the chap in my example below. That forty quid was more than half his disposable income - for the month!
Christ Edmund! You either need to get back over here or stop pontificating from Tokyo about life in the UK.
Your example isn't an argument for "make everything free, it's not like hospitals have anything better to do with the money", it's an argument for "fix the retarded, twattishly-enforced Pay and Display implementations".
I have never argued that everything should be free ... Oh, fuck it.
OK, whatever. You are right. The clever people know best and the little folks should just put up with it.
Bythe way, do you have an up to date link to your wonderful widget that works with chrome and the latest edition of PB.
When I watched the Jim Murphy No/Yes Red Tory Kerfuffle clip (earlier in the thread) on Youtube, the suggestions at the end included a clip of the Petits Chanteurs a la Croix de Bois, starring Baudouin Aube, in South Korea in 2010. Is that based on a similarity with Jim Murphy and the referendum campaign, or is it based on my viewing history (even if it's embedded in PB)?
So how about this little, true, story. A patient arrives for a follow-up meeting with his consultant. The meeting should not last more than 15 minutes as the patient has made sure to have all the blood-tests etc done the week before. So arriving 15 minutes before the appointment time how long should the patient put into the car park machine. A half-hour should be enough, but allow for delays one hour would surely be plenty. Nope, the consultant was "delayed", patient fined £80, but pay up within fourteen days and we will let you off with just £40. Not the patients fault, but he just got stuffed for forty quid.
People really are getting pissed of with that sort of shit. The hospital has a problem with commuters using its car park, fine sort it out with the commuters - do not take it out on the patients and their relatives. If the big parties want to kill off UKIP then they need to deal with the problems that affect real people, that is to say the little people.
Yep, that's a problem (and my model wasn't a model, or carefully crafted; it was just some thought I'd put into the issue).
That's why Hinchingbrooke is so good from my experience. Yes, just to annoy the lefties out there, that is the privately-run NHS hospital.
Parking is £2.50 for the duration of your appointment, or (from memory) two hours for non-patients. So if your appointment lasts four hours, it still costs just £2.50.
However, in my car I have a few free-parking labels handed out to me when it became clear we would be making several visits. You just write in the date and arrival time, and the department you are visiting onto the label and hang it off the windshield mirror.
And yes, that is a (whisper it quietly) privately run NHS hospital.
There are other issues, such as why should I get free parking if I arrive at hospital by car, but still pay full public transport fare if travelling by bus? Isn't that subsidising people with access to cars over those arriving by bus?
There's also the issue of land value. I don't know how many cars that can be parked on an acre under normal regulations, but let us say it is 200. That land often has value, especially if the hospital is in a built-up area. If you need parking for 600 cars, then that is three acres of land, potentially worth millions, that is a drag on finances; if some of it were to be sold it would raise capital and remove some of that drag. And the alternative of multistorey car parks cost money to operate and maintain as well.
I'm not sure there's a good catch-all answer. The best solution will probably vary from hospital to hospital - some will be able to offer free parking, for others a Hinchinbrooke-style solution may be better, For others, a full-fee system.
But yes, the egregious penalties you mention should be stamped on, especially if the patient was not abusing the system.
That pretty much sums it up. From where I sit cash hoarding corporates and super rich individuals can either become part of the conversation or end up finding they have solutions imposed upon them. It's not a left/right issue, it's about sustaining the kind of societies in which rule of law, freedom of expression, respect for private property and so on endure. If people come to believe that such societies cannot deliver decent quality of life they will no longer have a stake in maintaing them. Then we all suffer. It sounds apocalyptic, but what is society except a means of coming together to improve collective outcomes.
A typical "to save the village we have to destroy it" argument, SO.
Partially deconstruct and rebuild, mindful all the time not to disturb the foundations. Or the village will be burned to the ground and another one entirely built that may be a whole lot uglier.
Late to the thread (back in SoCal for 36 hours) but fundamental aren't we going to have a repeat of the 2010 election?
Tories say: Labour messed up big time, only we can fix it. good progress but lots to do.
labour say: evil bankers messed it all up, but we can sort it out with hurting the little people. You get to keep all your sweeties, unlike those heartless Tories.
If that is right then:
- Tories get everyone who voted for them last time + any centrists who were scared off by Labour's scare campaign last time
- Labour grets everyone who voted for them last time + red liberals - any ?Brown bonus in Scotland
- LibDems get last time - Cleggasm - RedLibs - protest voters
- UKIP get 3% + LD protest + some of their DNV support
Outcome probably still hung parlament. I think Tories largest party, but could easily be Labour.
I shall be publishing at 7.30pm the ComRes online poll for the IoS/Sunday Mirror. <\b>
I am sensing a tie or a Tory lead. The recent run of good Labour polls are surely too good to be true.
I don't think they're too good to be true - I think they are closer to the reality - but for a 'not to miss' poll, a tie or Tory lead would fit the bill, or else Tories dropping below UKIP, which seems less likely to happen.
For our fifth wedding anniversary yesterday, the wonderful and Goddess-like Mrs Jessop gave me two books about the Institution of Civil Engineers.
One says that there has not been a single MP with a civil engineering background in the House of Commons since 2005. With the death of Henry Chilver last year, there are just two in the House of Lords (David Chidgie and Will Howie), both of whom were ex-MPs booted into the Lords.
And I think there is only one scientists in the House of Commons as well - Julian Huppert.
And how many lawyers, ex-union officials and lifetime politicos?
I'm not sure there's a good catch-all answer. The best solution will probably vary from hospital to hospital - some will be able to offer free parking, for others a Hinchinbrooke-style solution may be better, For others, a full-fee system.
But yes, the egregious penalties you mention should be stamped on, especially if the patient was not abusing the system.
I am damn sure that there isn't one single solution that would suit all hospital sites. I am also damn sure that car parking companies trying to make a profit out of patients and visitors to the sick have no business in the NHS. The whole idea that an elderly lady could lose more than half her monthly disposable income to some parking company because her consultant got up late, or found an interesting breast in his ward round or whatever, is obscene.
For our fifth wedding anniversary yesterday, the wonderful and Goddess-like Mrs Jessop gave me two books about the Institution of Civil Engineers.
One says that there has not been a single MP with a civil engineering background in the House of Commons since 2005. With the death of Henry Chilver last year, there are just two in the House of Lords (David Chidgie and Will Howie), both of whom were ex-MPs booted into the Lords.
And I think there is only one scientists in the House of Commons as well - Julian Huppert.
And how many lawyers, ex-union officials and lifetime politicos?
I despair.
When you go through the educational achievements of the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet the number of times 'PPE' appears is truly frightening. I mean how many 'experts' with degrees in Stupidity do they need?
You shouldn't get the impotent old dears worked up, they turn bitchy when one links to sites or folk that are actually playing a part in the campaign they're so exercised about. It's even worse when the individual concerned is banned and can't answer back.
It is a shame that folks are attacking the way JK looks (as if they are all perfect models of humankind themselves) rather than what he is saying.
Point taken but distinguishing man from ball in this case is far from easy.
Comments
You have no need to be sad about calling me on anything. Indeed I am always pleased to be put right especially by someone who knows what he is talking about. When I went to visit an, alas now deceased friend, in Addenbrokes a couple of years back I don't recall any parking problems, but I accept my memory may be at fault, and I still think of it as the being in the back of beyond.
I must still ask the question though whether charges, accompanied by the inevitable fines, are the correct way to regulate hospital car parking.
"Yes, the absence of a draw option has markedly changed the way we all play and made deadlocks much harder. Only question is whether we'll EVER finish, since when anyone puts a nose in front everyone pounces on him. Now in 1918 and no clear winner in sight."
Full respect Nick, but the battlefield does seem to be changing and the weakest is getting nudged back. If it were possible to have a clean market on Diplomacy my money would be riding on Andy Cooke at this point. He will probably be very upset that I have said that and I guess he will be bringing his doll of me out of the cupboard ready for the pins as soon as he reads this. If I am absent from these forums over the next few days you know why - Cooke witchcraft.
" I'm sure that post has an A missing, use your spell check Roger."
So we don't like fat bald and Scottish now??
What does ANL stand for?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTHlac9vga4
I wonder if there is anything else he misrepresents puts a positive gloss on?
So that's what "Scot goes Pop!" Means!
@KittyRaven2: This is what you call revenge...#IceBucketChallenge @TogetherDarling @aislinnrobbie http://t.co/BLLSFt95bp
*goes of to check definition of, "Svelte". memo to self how do you pronounce "Svelte"*
Parking at Hinchingbrooke costs £2.50 for the duration of your visit. The car park varies from nearly empty to full-ish, but I've never failed to find a space. They have proved rather keen to hand out free parking labels for future visits, but allegedly are rather good at finding people who have not paid.
It is situated in a village a mile away from the centre of Huntingdon. There is a country park five minutes walk away that costs £2 all day, and which often has between two and (say) ten cars in it, and many more at weekends.
Obviously the car park at the country park is not filling up with overspill from the hospital (at least when I have visited), but if the hospital car park was free, would many of the fit people who use the country park walk from the free hospital car park, reducing the park's income?
Addenbrookes is more complex. The site is massive and busy, but well served by public transport. In particular, there is a new(ish) guided busway and path from the Trumpington Road Park and Ride, a little over a mile away. The county council have recently put an insane pricing policy on the park and ride, meaning that it is even less attractive than before.
If parking at the hospital was free, then people would park there and use the guided bus and other routes to get into town, whose car parks are also rather crazily priced (although not as bad as the P&R). Alternative schemes such as passes stamped may not work very well where the site is so vast, and there is no one point you pass through to get them stamped (e.g. supermarket checkouts).
Basically: whether free parking is valid or not will depend on the hospital, and even then may have wide consequences for the local area and residents.
But as ever, I like to evaluate precedent. It would be interesting to know the Scottish experience of no-fees from the perspective of equivalent hospitals and local residents.
"Quote something I said that is racist you mug"
I should think it's clear to most who have read your posts that like your idol Enoch you have a problem with those of a different hue but chacun a son gout as they say in Marseilles
Sorry for the late reply, just been to an excellent cookery display and book signing by Mary Berry at the 'Flavours of Herefordshire' Festival!
One of my all time favourites!
"Oh it's not a case of not liking Roger, I've never had the fun of meeting JK so the only time I'm seen him is his avatar where he looks like a skinny 12 year old. In the event he's Gregor Fishers double,"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTHlac9vga4
Cameron is to the left of me, but do I want to see PM Miliband? No
Would I like to see believeable rightwingers arguing and winning their share of the argument? Yes.
Instead, in between shooting themselves in the foot they undermine their own party and hence their prospects.
This is the 3rd time I have explained that and you continue to ignore that and invent some Cameron fetish as a defence mechanism..
I find it amusing you can spare the time to pick up on typos instead of the facts behind them. Facts like, I would welcome a referendum on the EU; we need a new arrangemnt; a rational move to the EEA would probably be best; and have every sympathy for Mr Autonomous.
But anyone who pretends that UKIP are not doing their best to live off the back of making racism respectable is delusional. The remarks of Atkinson show just what people surround Farage. (Atkinson who responded to her own supporters complaint by saying they only wanted 'five minutes of fame'.)
The Con lead graph is a good idea but all the averages appear to be wrong - they don't tie in to the main chart.
23/8/14:
Lab 37.83, Con 33.50, true lead = 4.33
Per lead graph, lead = 3.56
8/8/14:
Lab 36.25, Con 33.15, true lead = 3.10
Per lead graph, lead = 3.05
Earlier average leads also don't reconcile!
Not sure what's wrong but must be something with the formulae.
Sorry Sam. Only having fun.
UKIP have huge problems - not least the wrong leader - but they at least have some beliefs and some principles. Something both you and the current Tory party clearly lack.
When you stop your continual propagandising on behalf of Cameron then I might start to take you seriously. Until then all you deserve is utter contempt.
Betting PostBacked Alonso for a podium at 3.25, hedged at 1.5.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/belgium-pre-race.html
So the kites are getting flown over working with Assad's regime in the conflict against ISIS.
In reality the Western and regional actors involved know that they have to attack IS in Syria if they want to do this right. In doing so, even if they don't actually work with Assad, the thinking is that it will benefit Bashar by reducing the pressure on him.
This school of thought has its attractions but its not a 100% sure thing that it will benefit Assad. It does damage a major battlefield problem for Assad. In the east where IS have focussed their land grabbing activities, there are few doubts what's left of Syrian army garrisons there are under pressure. Taqba airbase alone is estimated to have anything upto 1000 personnel and Assad can't replace those easily as hos dependency on Iranian and other 3rd party Shia militia imports is increasingly evident. Strategically it rests in an area which offers good road links to the West.. Despite throwing in a brigade of Republican Guards and a severe level of airstrikes to help break the siege IS seem to still have the upper hand.
Whats worse, as his forces carry their own siege around Aleppo, IS has turned up around the city.
Thus the school of thought goes, any Western air action in Syria against IS helps Assad.
Yet the great unknown is whether attacks on IS will also help the rest of the insurgent movement who have long fought on two fronts in many areas, vs Assad's forces and also IS. Taking IS out might also ease pressure on them. The major focus of Assad's and surrogate manpower isn't up against IS in the East, its elsewhere. To that end even if IS gets hit, he may not have huge amounts of resources to suddenly free up.
As it is, there is talk that battlefield targeting intelligence has made its way to Assad through a circuitous route to help Syrian airstrikes in the IS Syrian heartland. Unconfirmed but its unlikely to surprise if it has.
A final note. There is a notably large Iranian force sitting just across the border from the Kurdish region of Iraq, moved into place fairly recently. It hasn't moved across the border but it has a purpose. They also have platoon and company sized formations on the battefield with the Kurds in a couple of areas.
It does make you wonder why its taken so long
At my DGH, if say an X ray can be prompt (which it has been) I can avoid parking charges since the 1st 30 mins are free. Parking is on exit and not in advance. It already offers concessions. Charges for under 2 hours are £2.80. Between 8PM and 8AM its free (thats FREE).
At another community hospital nearby its £2 for 4 hours. At others it is free.
I would guess that most people realise there would be no places at all if it was free for all.
It may be a badly managed issue in some places but I cannot help but think it is a manufactured issue.
"Point taken but distinguishing man from ball in this case is far from easy."
Very funny, and I laughed out loud..
But he's just bonny, as they in Scotland
You can prove this by messing around with polling questions. If you're dealing with an issue people haven't thought about much you'll be able to get wildly different responses by phrasing it differently ("free parking vs patient care?"). A lot of opposition manifesto populism is based on the divide between what the voters will think is a good idea in the (minimal) time they have available to think about something and what gets enacted when people actually look at the problem in depth and make government policy.
So how about this little, true, story. A patient arrives for a follow-up meeting with his consultant. The meeting should not last more than 15 minutes as the patient has made sure to have all the blood-tests etc done the week before. So arriving 15 minutes before the appointment time how long should the patient put into the car park machine. A half-hour should be enough, but allow for delays one hour would surely be plenty. Nope, the consultant was "delayed", patient fined £80, but pay up within fourteen days and we will let you off with just £40. Not the patients fault, but he just got stuffed for forty quid.
People really are getting pissed of with that sort of shit. The hospital has a problem with commuters using its car park, fine sort it out with the commuters - do not take it out on the patients and their relatives. If the big parties want to kill off UKIP then they need to deal with the problems that affect real people, that is to say the little people.
None of the bloggers on here will be convincing each other to change their mind, so it's find the fun to fill in the boredom until the 18th. Just count off the days until the whole tedious exercise is over.
You won't want to miss this poll
Yes win! - We wuz lied to! It's nae fair! (Currency Union, for starters)
No win! - We wuz lied to! It's nae fair! (Further devolution will never be enough....)
Christ Edmund! You either need to get back over here or stop pontificating from Tokyo about life in the UK.
one half of PB will be criyng told you so while the other scream MOE and outlier.
It's a poll, another one will be along soon.
OK, whatever. You are right. The clever people know best and the little folks should just put up with it.
Bythe way, do you have an up to date link to your wonderful widget that works with chrome and the latest edition of PB.
That's why Hinchingbrooke is so good from my experience. Yes, just to annoy the lefties out there, that is the privately-run NHS hospital.
Parking is £2.50 for the duration of your appointment, or (from memory) two hours for non-patients. So if your appointment lasts four hours, it still costs just £2.50.
However, in my car I have a few free-parking labels handed out to me when it became clear we would be making several visits. You just write in the date and arrival time, and the department you are visiting onto the label and hang it off the windshield mirror.
And yes, that is a (whisper it quietly) privately run NHS hospital.
There are other issues, such as why should I get free parking if I arrive at hospital by car, but still pay full public transport fare if travelling by bus? Isn't that subsidising people with access to cars over those arriving by bus?
There's also the issue of land value. I don't know how many cars that can be parked on an acre under normal regulations, but let us say it is 200. That land often has value, especially if the hospital is in a built-up area. If you need parking for 600 cars, then that is three acres of land, potentially worth millions, that is a drag on finances; if some of it were to be sold it would raise capital and remove some of that drag. And the alternative of multistorey car parks cost money to operate and maintain as well.
I'm not sure there's a good catch-all answer. The best solution will probably vary from hospital to hospital - some will be able to offer free parking, for others a Hinchinbrooke-style solution may be better, For others, a full-fee system.
But yes, the egregious penalties you mention should be stamped on, especially if the patient was not abusing the system.
Tories say: Labour messed up big time, only we can fix it. good progress but lots to do.
labour say: evil bankers messed it all up, but we can sort it out with hurting the little people. You get to keep all your sweeties, unlike those heartless Tories.
If that is right then:
- Tories get everyone who voted for them last time + any centrists who were scared off by Labour's scare campaign last time
- Labour grets everyone who voted for them last time + red liberals - any ?Brown bonus in Scotland
- LibDems get last time - Cleggasm - RedLibs - protest voters
- UKIP get 3% + LD protest + some of their DNV support
Outcome probably still hung parlament. I think Tories largest party, but could easily be Labour.
I'm running this on Firefox which works with Vanilla for favourites and ignores:
http://www.edochan.com/widgets/pb/pb_vanilla_edmund_widget.user.js
Putting my neck on the block, I'll go for a Labour 5% - 6% lead.
For our fifth wedding anniversary yesterday, the wonderful and Goddess-like Mrs Jessop gave me two books about the Institution of Civil Engineers.
One says that there has not been a single MP with a civil engineering background in the House of Commons since 2005. With the death of Henry Chilver last year, there are just two in the House of Lords (David Chidgie and Will Howie), both of whom were ex-MPs booted into the Lords.
And I think there is only one scientists in the House of Commons as well - Julian Huppert.
And how many lawyers, ex-union officials and lifetime politicos?
I despair.