'Still some good news to come in the NHS on Monday with a cull of useless treatments from the Cancer Drugs Fund. As taxpayers we should all be glad that this scheme designed entirely to divert profits to drug companies is being cut back.'
Wide play must be given to the preferences and enterprise of individuals. Nothing will be done to destroy the close personal relationship between doctor and patient, nor to restrict the patient's free choice of doctor.
'Still some good news to come in the NHS on Monday with a cull of useless treatments from the Cancer Drugs Fund. As taxpayers we should all be glad that this scheme designed entirely to divert profits to drug companies is being cut back.'
I see the NHS is evil, and the only way to run a health service is in the private sector trolls are out in force tonight.
Still some good news to come in the NHS on Monday with a cull of useless treatments from the Cancer Drugs Fund. As taxpayers we should all be glad that this scheme designed entirely to divert profits to drug companies is being cut back.
The NHS is not evil - it just needs to be flexible and responsive to demand, which it currently isn't.
"I see the NHS is evil, and the only way to run a health service is in the private sector" is a false narrative. That is my preference but it is not a doctrinal issue.
@bigjohnowls "No other Acute provider is rated inadequate for quality overall though is it? Special measures. Safety, A&E, Leadership,care, medical care all inadequate. " Be careful, or our fundamentalist right wingers will be searching Ebay for Kalashnikovs to put an end to your blasphemy of the free market.
I really don't think think you can make party political points out of this - both Labour & Coalition governments have been following this system for years, with a bit of tinkering at the edges.
As a GP, I have despaired at the false markets that have been emerged - patients fall into the gaps that are created and far too much GP's time is wasted in trying to help patients negotiate the most complex systems.
Well i agree with that.
Milburn was one of the first architect of the competition although GP Funholding calamity predates that.
I am known as a leftie on here but i know lab are culpable in a lot of this but the Lansley reforms were the final straw for me particularly the 30% tariff for additional ED patients above the 2010 outturn.
Most Acute providers would similarly love to exit emergency care as it is bankrupting them but decide to soldier on rather than cutting and running.
I am a supporter of the NHS before being a Lab supporter the former is much more important but really do believe the Tories cannot be trusted on the NHS
Using history as a measure, how many years of its existence has the NHS survived under Tory rule?
Survived Thatcher albeit with 12 month waits for operations i suppose.
Acute hospitals will not survive this winter without a bailout IMO and will certainly not survive a further year of the current restiction on A&E tariff at 30%
Go on then, how many hospitals will be shut down, shuttered up and sold off?
The NHS is not evil - it just needs to be flexible and responsive to demand, which it currently isn't.
"I see the NHS is evil, and the only way to run a health service is in the private sector" is a false narrative. That is my preference but it is not a doctrinal issue.
It's been pretty responsive to demand over the last few weeks - heroically so despite a lack of resources.
The NHS is not evil - it just needs to be flexible and responsive to demand, which it currently isn't.
"I see the NHS is evil, and the only way to run a health service is in the private sector" is a false narrative. That is my preference but it is not a doctrinal issue.
It's been pretty responsive to demand over the last few weeks - heroically so despite a lack of resources.
So if I need an MRI I can get one the same day? I can get gall bladder surgery within 48 hours?
The NHS is not evil - it just needs to be flexible and responsive to demand, which it currently isn't.
"I see the NHS is evil, and the only way to run a health service is in the private sector" is a false narrative. That is my preference but it is not a doctrinal issue.
It's been pretty responsive to demand over the last few weeks - heroically so despite a lack of resources.
It's had more money thrown at it than Laboùr were planning on giving it.
I have been sitting back watching this debate about the hebdo murders
If anyone cares here is my take
Terrorists have basically said "publish cartoons like this we will kill you"
We have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists anything short of immediately publishing these cartoons whether they upset muslims or not is in effect giving them what they have demanded. The british government should have immediately published them and explained to moderate muslims why they felt they needed to. A moderate muslim would understand even though the cartoons made them uncomfortable. Those that did not understand are not moderate muslims.
In addition Farage was right we do have a fifth column in this country. He was incorrect about his targetting though that fifth column is not Jihadi's it is the people such as Audrey"PBUH"Anne and the other useful idiots such as flightpath, will Self and the idiot from the financial times who would rather appease terrorism than confront it.
In addition I would like to say to CycleFree we often disagree on politics but your posts have been absolutely spot on in the last couple of days and much respect to you for making them.
Those that think jihadi's are a tiny tiny minority come live in slough in one of the muslim enclaves for a couple of months. You will soon learn that the minority isn't as small as you claim. Most muslims abhor what is happening if we give in we not only let ourselves down we let them down because when we kowtow to these militants and self censor we send them a message. That message is "we aren't going to put ourselves in the line of fire so we certainly aren't going to go out of our way to protect you if you speak out"
And what evidence do you have that the scheme was designed entirely to divert profits to drug companies ?
Because basically the government said "whatever price you charge for your drugs we'll buy them". No need to convince NICE of a treatment's cost-effectiveness, it has just allowed drug companies to charge whatever they like diverting money away from people who do not have cancer.
Wide play must be given to the preferences and enterprise of individuals. Nothing will be done to destroy the close personal relationship between doctor and patient, nor to restrict the patient's free choice of doctor.
That didn't work out too well.
Prior to the introduction of the Internal Market and the restrictions of commissioning it was possible for any doctor to refer any patient to wherever they wanted.
I voted Labour in 1997 as they promised to end the internal market, which perversly restricted choice, selling patients to the highest bidder like cattle at market. I was bitterly disappointed when Blair and Milburn reversed this and vastly expanded the privatisation of the NHS.
I am not convinced that the NHS is safe in Labours hands either.
So if I need an MRI I can get one the same day? I can get gall bladder surgery within 48 hours?
If you need both clinically, yes.
I'm the customer here - if I want it can I get it? Clinically notwithstanding. I'm paying for this.
A quick example. A couple of years ago a routine xray found a golf ball sized mass in my chest. My doctor said it wasn't urgent but arranged an MRI the next morning. I asked what would have happened if it was urgent. The answer was that I would have gone straight for the MRI from the doctor's office. I doubt the NHS is like that.
So if I need an MRI I can get one the same day? I can get gall bladder surgery within 48 hours?
If you need both clinically, yes.
I'm the customer here - if I want it can I get it? Clinically notwithstanding. I'm paying for this.
Not if you don't need it, that would be entirely a waste of resources. And that's the reason the Americans fritter away twice as much money on health as us, for a poorer outcome.
'So if I need an MRI I can get one the same day? '
You just hit a raw nerve, my wife has just had the runaround from our beloved NHS being referred for an MRI when a biopsy was required,we had to intervene via our GP to stop the nonsense.
So if I need an MRI I can get one the same day? I can get gall bladder surgery within 48 hours?
If you need both clinically, yes.
I'm the customer here - if I want it can I get it? Clinically notwithstanding. I'm paying for this.
Not if you don't need it, that would be entirely a waste of resources. And that's the reason the Americans fritter away twice as much money on health as us, for a poorer outcome.
'So if I need an MRI I can get one the same day? '
You just hit a raw nerve, my wife has just had the runaround from our beloved NHS being referred for an MRI when a biopsy was required,we had to intervene via our GP to stop the nonsense.
The health care system here - other than Obamacare - is set up to serve the consumer who pays for it. The NHS is set up to serve those who work for it.
I am not doctrinally opposed to the NHS. I have lived in France, Holland, Spain, Canada and the US. Government run health care can work. Unfortunately the NHS doesn't.
The same issue from a policing & intelligence perspective emerges in the recent events in France and other attacks in Europe, including here. Suspects are known but seem to be able to attack unhindered, free from the agencies knowing their recent activities in the build up to their day of glory. If the French incidents are confirmed as a co-ordinated team approach, it makes the intelligence failure harder to dismiss as bad luck. Links in chains are absolutely vital in gathering intelligence so a co-ordinated approach, as appears to have happened in France was, on paper, one of its vulnerabilities.
Accepting that there never 100% coverage there is a problem that I wrote about on here a number of months ago that dogs Western intelligence agencies but is particularly acute when it comes to managing the threat of domestic terrorism: the lack of ground level human intelligence.
In short, the agencies lack the volume of informers. Technically bountifully equipped with as much signals intelligence as you can shake a stick at, they are woefully short of low ground sources of intelligence. The big high grade informer within a movement is hard to get at the best of times and particularly difficult within the current structure of Islamic fundamentalists within Europe.
In practice this is a network of your small time informants, a large network, everything from your shopkeepers, your low level crims that you have by the balls, the friends who aren't friends and so on. They might not be directly part of a cell or a high value asset, they might have no actual role in the 'movement' but they come into contact with your suspects simply by living in the same area, working with them, know them from ODC activities.
Its those guys who can often provide the most imminent warning but there isn't a domestic intelligence agency in Europe, including those in the UK, that appears to have built that network with regards to the linked individuals who perpetrate the kind of attacks seen both here and there. The focus on human intelligence has been on the mosques, heavily so, to the detriment of outside sources.
If you look at successful domestic intelligence efforts to meet a threat, whether in a democracy or draconian state, they have a very extensive network of small time informers with some high grade merchants and plenty of technical intelligence.
I think someone needs to explain to Tim b that we still have private healthcare in the UK where you can have as many unnecessary mri scans as you want...
Those who are very expensively trained to detect so. If you're really saying that the US health system is great because you can wake up one morning and say "I know what? I'll go for an MRI scan today" then that's completely and utterly nuts.
The same issue from a policing & intelligence perspective emerges in the recent events in France and other attacks in Europe, including here. Suspects are known but seem to be able to attack unhindered, free from the agencies knowing their recent activities in the build up to their day of glory. If the French incidents are confirmed as a co-ordinated team approach, it makes the intelligence failure harder to dismiss as bads luck. Links in chains are absolutely vital in gathering intelligence so a co-ordinated approach as appears to have happened in France was, on paper, one of its vulnerabilities.
Accepting that there never 100% coverage there is a problem that I wrote about on here a number of months ago that dogs Western intelligence agencies but is particularly acute when it comes to managing the threat of domestic terrorism: the lack of ground level human intelligence.
In short, the agencies lack the volume of informers. Technically bountifully equipped with as much signals intelligence as you can shake a stick at they are woefully short of low ground sources of intelligence. The big high grade informer within a movement is hard to get at the best of times and particularly difficult within the current structure of Islamic fundamentalists within Europe.
If you look at successful domestic intelligence efforts to meet a threat, whether in a democracy or draconian state, they have a very extensive network of small time informers with some high grade merchants and plenty of technical intelligence.
Unfortunately the intelligence agencies seem not to care about this. Rather than take your excellent post and learn from it they would rather instead take the opportunity on expanding surveillance on everyone else. Indeed the head of one of the MI services was expounding on this theme this very day.
Given that every terrorist incident in the last few years has been committed by those already known to the relevant countries intelligence services their demands to increase the size of the haystack seem incomprehensible.
In addition it causes us innocent victims of surveillance to hit back in ways that can be used by terrorists. For example I am currently working with some people in several other countries to produce an android app that will allow for encrypted phone calls and texts with public keys being exchanged by nfc contacts. We started working on this purely due to the mass surveillance. Can it be used by terrorists and criminals? Of course it can but most of them already have access to using means to obscure their plots in any case. The only people using unecrypted communication these days are the innocent
Wide play must be given to the preferences and enterprise of individuals. Nothing will be done to destroy the close personal relationship between doctor and patient, nor to restrict the patient's free choice of doctor.
That didn't work out too well.
You think I'm quoting that devotee of Eugenics - Beveridge?
I think someone needs to explain to Tim b that we still have private healthcare in the UK where you can have as many unnecessary mri scans as you want...
I had private health care in the UK - after my daughter's disastrous knee operation on the NHS we went private to have it done properly.
My own thoughts. This was clearly a direct attack on free speech, and I am glad that the attackers are now getting a rude surprise in hell.
But: I am yet to see a Charlie Hebdo cartoon that is funny.
And: The terrorists cannot win on this, by this method. Charlie Hebdo was old media, paper and ephemeral, distributed to a few intellectuals in France. There are far more scurrilous and offensive depictions of Mohammed on the web.
These sites are permanent in a way that Hebdo is not, and can be read by anyone with an internet browser or smartphone. Jihad uses the internet, but so does the counter-jihad. The terrorists can shut down Charlie Hebdo, but they are powerless to stop the penetration of Western Ideas of freedom and materialist hedonism. Any teenager with a hint of curiosity can find material that the Mullahs would find highly offensive, and these sites are being read in bedrooms everywhere. Jihadis know and can be offended by these sites in the comfort of their own bedrooms. They initially act aggressively in response, but part of the reason for their offence is that they have seed of doubt implanted in their head causing cognitive dissonance. They know that they have been fed a pack of lies by their elders.
The internet is certainly more powerful than the pen, and far more so than the sword.
My own thoughts. This was clearly a direct attack on free speech, and I am glad that the attackers are now getting a rude surprise in hell.
But: I am yet to see a Charlie Hebdo cartoon that is funny.
And: The terrorists cannot win on this, by this method. Charlie Hebdo was old media, paper and ephemeral, distributed to a few intellectuals in France. There are far more scurrilous and offensive depictions of Mohammed on the web.
These sites are permanent in a way that Hebdo is not, and can be read by anyone with an internet browser or smartphone. Jihad uses the internet, but so does the counter-jihad. The terrorists can shut down Charlie Hebdo, but they are powerless to stop the penetration of Western Ideas of freedom and materialist hedonism. Any teenager with a hint of curiosity can find material that the Mullahs would find highly offensive, and these sites are being read in bedrooms everywhere. Jihadis know and can be offended by these sites in the comfort of their own bedrooms. They initially act aggressively in response, but part of the reason for their offence is that they have seed of doubt implanted in their head causing cognitive dissonance. They know that they have been fed a pack of lies by their elders.
The internet is certainly more powerful than the pen, and far more so than the sword.
While for a change I agree with everything you are saying I do disagree on one point.
The cartoons of Hebdo whether funny or not was why they were killed. The instant response in my mind to show the terrorists that they can't win by this route is to immediately republish them everywhere possible. If our press are too concerned for their safety to do so then the government should do so.
Refusing to publish merely sends the message spill enough blood and we will do what you say. I make no judgements on the cartoons cleverness or otherwise because frankly I haven't seen them I do however know these facts
1) People were prepared to kill in order to intimidate others into not publishing such cartoons 2) Not immediately republishing them told these people they had got their way
I think someone needs to explain to Tim b that we still have private healthcare in the UK where you can have as many unnecessary mri scans as you want...
I had private health care in the UK - after my daughter's disastrous knee operation on the NHS we went private to have it done properly.
I have seen plenty travel the other way too, with bodged private care from both UK and overseas being fixed on the NHS at taxpayers expense.
And if the NHS is run for the benefit of its staff then why does it struggle to recruit and retain them?
Regarding health care, my daughter here in the US, and my sister in law in the UK both required gall bladder surgery last year at almost the same time.
My daughter (after some annoying delays as she had Obamacare at the time, luckily now she doesn't) simply sat with the practice manager and they settled on a date which suited her convenience.
By contrast my sister in law sat and waited for about 6 weeks until the NHS told her where and when. She had zero input as to scheduling or location.
That's basically the difference between the NHS and coverage here - here the hospitals, doctors, imaging companies and drug stores appreciate your business and know you have a choice, and they will go the extra mile. The NHS is run for the benefit of those who work in it, not the consumer, who they know has no choice so don't feel they need to provide a service.
US has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. The NHS is one of the most cost effective.
I think you have to define cost-effective. If it means you get crap care but it's cheap I suspect it's not an argument you want to make.
Do remember that in the UK you have the choice to pay for health insurance - and a lot of people do. It's just that we also have universal healthcare coverage, and it costs (relatively speaking) very little.
The US government spends more on healthcare - as a percentage of GDP - than the British government does. And we get universal coverage for our more modest spend.
The US government pays for VA healthcare, medicare, medicaid and the 'risk corridors' of Obamacare and that's it.
It does not pay for the vast majority of the nation's healthcare system.
Universal coverage - that covers a multitude of sins.
My own thoughts. This was clearly a direct attack on free speech, and I am glad that the attackers are now getting a rude surprise in hell.
But: I am yet to see a Charlie Hebdo cartoon that is funny.
And: The terrorists cannot win on this, by this method. Charlie Hebdo was old media, paper and ephemeral, distributed to a few intellectuals in France. There are far more scurrilous and offensive depictions of Mohammed on the web.
These sites are permanent in a way that Hebdo is not, and can be read by anyone with an internet browser or smartphone. Jihad uses the internet, but so does the counter-jihad. The terrorists can shut down Charlie Hebdo, but they are powerless to stop the penetration of Western Ideas of freedom and materialist hedonism. Any teenager with a hint of curiosity can find material that the Mullahs would find highly offensive, and these sites are being read in bedrooms everywhere. Jihadis know and can be offended by these sites in the comfort of their own bedrooms. They initially act aggressively in response, but part of the reason for their offence is that they have seed of doubt implanted in their head causing cognitive dissonance. They know that they have been fed a pack of lies by their elders.
The internet is certainly more powerful than the pen, and far more so than the sword.
While for a change I agree with everything you are saying I do disagree on one point.
The cartoons of Hebdo whether funny or not was why they were killed. The instant response in my mind to show the terrorists that they can't win by this route is to immediately republish them everywhere possible. If our press are too concerned for their safety to do so then the government should do so.
Refusing to publish merely sends the message spill enough blood and we will do what you say. I make no judgements on the cartoons cleverness or otherwise because frankly I haven't seen them I do however know these facts
1) People were prepared to kill in order to intimidate others into not publishing such cartoons 2) Not immediately republishing them told these people they had got their way
They are published all over the web, and in a way that is both safer and more easily distributed.
Maybe all those French speaking Muslims in africa and middle east are laughing like drains at the moment.
They are published all over the web, and in a way that is both safer and more easily distributed.
Maybe all those French speaking Muslims in africa and middle east are laughing like drains at the moment.
The fact they are published all over the web in a safe way is irrelevant. We need to stand up and be counted and publish them publically. A random website publishing them means nothing. Governments and major new organs doing so say to them "We will not bow down to you and do what you wish because you shoot a few people" in a way that some anonymous website publishing them safe in the knowledge they are unlikely to be tracked down doesn't. Hiding behind the anonymity of the web merely tells them the same thing "We have terrified people into not doing it, or at least doing it so we can't pursue it".
This does not mean I blame any paper for not doing it they have staff to think of, however it is why if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate
That's right. The US government spends a huge amount of money to pay for the old and the poor and veterans. And then largely healthy and in-work citizens, like TimB, pay the same again so they can choose which day they have their MRI on.
It has a system which - and this is entirely true - does not use its enormous size to negotiate discounted prices on drugs. (The US government pays more for almost every single drug than the NHS does. @Charles probably knows the stats better than I do.)
And yet Americans don't live as long as the Brits or the French or the Italians, etc.
The internet is certainly more powerful than the pen, and far more so than the sword.
"Hacktivist" group Anonymous have released a video statement saying they will take revenge for the terrorist attacks by shutting down jihadist websites.
The NHS is not evil - it just needs to be flexible and responsive to demand, which it currently isn't.
"I see the NHS is evil, and the only way to run a health service is in the private sector" is a false narrative. That is my preference but it is not a doctrinal issue.
It's been pretty responsive to demand over the last few weeks - heroically so despite a lack of resources.
So if I need an MRI I can get one the same day? I can get gall bladder surgery within 48 hours?
Yes but most people cannot , fine in US if you have money. Typical "F you I have cash" attitude. You must fit in well over there.
I think someone needs to explain to Tim b that we still have private healthcare in the UK where you can have as many unnecessary mri scans as you want...
Typical emigrant who has to justify leaving UK by trying to make out how great USA is. Fine if you are loaded , but UK is exactly the same and at least here we don't ignore the majority who do not have lots of cash. Basically he is a turnip.
Comments
'Still some good news to come in the NHS on Monday with a cull of useless treatments from the Cancer Drugs Fund. As taxpayers we should all be glad that this scheme designed entirely to divert profits to drug companies is being cut back.'
Are you an Oncologist?
"I see the NHS is evil, and the only way to run a health service is in the private sector" is a false narrative. That is my preference but it is not a doctrinal issue.
And what evidence do you have that the scheme was designed entirely to divert profits to drug companies ?
Under their budget it would GE properly fooked.
If anyone cares here is my take
Terrorists have basically said "publish cartoons like this we will kill you"
We have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists anything short of immediately publishing these cartoons whether they upset muslims or not is in effect giving them what they have demanded. The british government should have immediately published them and explained to moderate muslims why they felt they needed to. A moderate muslim would understand even though the cartoons made them uncomfortable. Those that did not understand are not moderate muslims.
In addition Farage was right we do have a fifth column in this country. He was incorrect about his targetting though that fifth column is not Jihadi's it is the people such as Audrey"PBUH"Anne and the other useful idiots such as flightpath, will Self and the idiot from the financial times who would rather appease terrorism than confront it.
In addition I would like to say to CycleFree we often disagree on politics but your posts have been absolutely spot on in the last couple of days and much respect to you for making them.
Those that think jihadi's are a tiny tiny minority come live in slough in one of the muslim enclaves for a couple of months. You will soon learn that the minority isn't as small as you claim. Most muslims abhor what is happening if we give in we not only let ourselves down we let them down because when we kowtow to these militants and self censor we send them a message. That message is "we aren't going to put ourselves in the line of fire so we certainly aren't going to go out of our way to protect you if you speak out"
I voted Labour in 1997 as they promised to end the internal market, which perversly restricted choice, selling patients to the highest bidder like cattle at market. I was bitterly disappointed when Blair and Milburn reversed this and vastly expanded the privatisation of the NHS.
I am not convinced that the NHS is safe in Labours hands either.
A quick example. A couple of years ago a routine xray found a golf ball sized mass in my chest. My doctor said it wasn't urgent but arranged an MRI the next morning. I asked what would have happened if it was urgent. The answer was that I would have gone straight for the MRI from the doctor's office. I doubt the NHS is like that.
'So if I need an MRI I can get one the same day? '
You just hit a raw nerve, my wife has just had the runaround from our beloved NHS being referred for an MRI when a biopsy was required,we had to intervene via our GP to stop the nonsense.
Accepting that there never 100% coverage there is a problem that I wrote about on here a number of months ago that dogs Western intelligence agencies but is particularly acute when it comes to managing the threat of domestic terrorism: the lack of ground level human intelligence.
In short, the agencies lack the volume of informers. Technically bountifully equipped with as much signals intelligence as you can shake a stick at, they are woefully short of low ground sources of intelligence. The big high grade informer within a movement is hard to get at the best of times and particularly difficult within the current structure of Islamic fundamentalists within Europe.
In practice this is a network of your small time informants, a large network, everything from your shopkeepers, your low level crims that you have by the balls, the friends who aren't friends and so on. They might not be directly part of a cell or a high value asset, they might have no actual role in the 'movement' but they come into contact with your suspects simply by living in the same area, working with them, know them from ODC activities.
Its those guys who can often provide the most imminent warning but there isn't a domestic intelligence agency in Europe, including those in the UK, that appears to have built that network with regards to the linked individuals who perpetrate the kind of attacks seen both here and there. The focus on human intelligence has been on the mosques, heavily so, to the detriment of outside sources.
If you look at successful domestic intelligence efforts to meet a threat, whether in a democracy or draconian state, they have a very extensive network of small time informers with some high grade merchants and plenty of technical intelligence.
' The NHS is set up to serve those who work for it.'
Hole in one.
Given that every terrorist incident in the last few years has been committed by those already known to the relevant countries intelligence services their demands to increase the size of the haystack seem incomprehensible.
In addition it causes us innocent victims of surveillance to hit back in ways that can be used by terrorists. For example I am currently working with some people in several other countries to produce an android app that will allow for encrypted phone calls and texts with public keys being exchanged by nfc contacts. We started working on this purely due to the mass surveillance. Can it be used by terrorists and criminals? Of course it can but most of them already have access to using means to obscure their plots in any case. The only people using unecrypted communication these days are the innocent
My own thoughts. This was clearly a direct attack on free speech, and I am glad that the attackers are now getting a rude surprise in hell.
But: I am yet to see a Charlie Hebdo cartoon that is funny.
And: The terrorists cannot win on this, by this method. Charlie Hebdo was old media, paper and ephemeral, distributed to a few intellectuals in France. There are far more scurrilous and offensive depictions of Mohammed on the web.
These sites are permanent in a way that Hebdo is not, and can be read by anyone with an internet browser or smartphone. Jihad uses the internet, but so does the counter-jihad. The terrorists can shut down Charlie Hebdo, but they are powerless to stop the penetration of Western Ideas of freedom and materialist hedonism. Any teenager with a hint of curiosity can find material that the Mullahs would find highly offensive, and these sites are being read in bedrooms everywhere. Jihadis know and can be offended by these sites in the comfort of their own bedrooms. They initially act aggressively in response, but part of the reason for their offence is that they have seed of doubt implanted in their head causing cognitive dissonance. They know that they have been fed a pack of lies by their elders.
The internet is certainly more powerful than the pen, and far more so than the sword.
The cartoons of Hebdo whether funny or not was why they were killed. The instant response in my mind to show the terrorists that they can't win by this route is to immediately republish them everywhere possible. If our press are too concerned for their safety to do so then the government should do so.
Refusing to publish merely sends the message spill enough blood and we will do what you say. I make no judgements on the cartoons cleverness or otherwise because frankly I haven't seen them I do however know these facts
1) People were prepared to kill in order to intimidate others into not publishing such cartoons
2) Not immediately republishing them told these people they had got their way
And if the NHS is run for the benefit of its staff then why does it struggle to recruit and retain them?
The UK government spends a little more than 6% of GDP on the NHS. (Source: http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/political/political-news/proportion-of-gdp-spent-on-nhs-falls/20006371.article#.VLB3EiusWkY)
Maybe all those French speaking Muslims in africa and middle east are laughing like drains at the moment.
What I'm saying is: the US government spends more than the UK as percentage of GDP and covers very few people.
That's not something I would want to defend if I was you.
I expect to see @LuckyGuy backing up his best buddy Putin on this one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.png
^_~
This does not mean I blame any paper for not doing it they have staff to think of, however it is why if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate
It has a system which - and this is entirely true - does not use its enormous size to negotiate discounted prices on drugs. (The US government pays more for almost every single drug than the NHS does. @Charles probably knows the stats better than I do.)
And yet Americans don't live as long as the Brits or the French or the Italians, etc.
All places which smoke and drink more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-30722098
This is one 'asymmetric war' the Jihadists may well lose.....
D Davis 7/10
V Cable 5/10
L Kendall 4.5/10
J H Brewer 9/10
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903889/Asterix-cartoonist-Albert-Uderzo-pays-tribute-Charlie-Hebdo-victims.html
Basically he is a turnip.