No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
Or to be Machiavellian:
What is the easiest way for a Tory government get the public on side for radical dismantling and privatisation of the NHS?
Get the public to turn against the greed of the well paid employees.
Play the long game.
My social media networks are FULL of junior doctors getting each other very excited about:
a) Jeremy Hunt and how much they dislike him - frequently expressed in the highest of doctorly insults: that they don't think he is competant b) How they're all hoping for the strike c) How this is a cynical ploy played out by unpleasant Tories who want to sell the NHS to their friends.
How they can't see that b) is going to facilitate the argument for c) I just don't get. They're generally pretty bright people. Politics is not their strong point, though.
Not a single person who isn't a medic has responded. It is yet another public sector echo chamber event.
Public sympathy will evaporate on hour 1 of a strike.
Scenario 1: similar to EU election of 2014. UKIP on 24% vote, Con on 27% and Lab on 23%, Greens on 7% and LDs on 9%. I get a Leave victory of 51.5% to 48.5%
Scenario 2: bigger two-party turnout. UKIP on 18%, Con on 33%, Lab on 27%, Green on 4%, and LD on 8.5%. Wafer-thin Leave lead of 50.08% to 49.93%.
On both scenarios I get a wafer thin Leave victory - the only thing that flips it is if I adjust the Conservative split.
For example, if I flip it to 40% Leave and 60% Remain then Remain wins instead by 56.5% to 43.5%.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
Some of them can't work Saturdays and Sundays, as they have wedding photography businesses to run. Well, the leader of the Junior Doctors does. Can't miss out on working a weekend for £5K.
Perhaps it's time for HMG to drop the ring fencing, and adopt the spending plan that Labour would have imposed on the NHS?
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
If you were offered a new contract that had a substantial pay cut would you be happy or sad about it?
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
Scenario 1: similar to EU election of 2014. UKIP on 24% vote, Con on 27% and Lab on 23%, Greens on 7% and LDs on 9%. I get a Leave victory of 51.5% to 48.5%
Scenario 2: bigger two-party turnout. UKIP on 18%, Con on 33%, Lab on 27%, Green on 4%, and LD on 8.5%. Wafer-thin Leave lead of 50.08% to 49.93%.
On both scenarios I get a wafer thin Leave victory - the only thing that flips it is if I adjust the Conservative split.
For example, if I flip it to 40% Leave and 60% Remain then Remain wins instead by 56.5% to 43.5%.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
If you were offered a new contract that had a substantial pay cut would you be happy or sad about it?
I've had a pay cut before now. Never welcome, but you have the choice to walk if it is that bad.
I've worked weekends - still do sometimes. I've done 90 hour weeks, not had a full holiday allocation. I could have walked. My choice.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
If you were offered a new contract that had a substantial pay cut would you be happy or sad about it?
So far this year I have had all of my contracts cut by between 15 and 30% - in one case 50%. There is a tightening right across the board in every profession I know that has anything to do with contracting for the public sector and equivalent or deeper cuts in the private sector as well.
Am I happy about it? No. Do I accept it? Yes. It is only those in the privileged position of public sector employment who seem to think that their wages should only ever go up.
I note (rank and file of the) Doctors are screaming and crying and generally making a huge noise whilst the police who are undergoing way harsher cuts are being far more stoic.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
If you were offered a new contract that had a substantial pay cut would you be happy or sad about it?
They are all getting a substantial pay increase, 11%. Some may have to do some extra hours , just like most of the public do nowadays. They are just greedy. Lots of people have to work extra hours unpaid and weekends etc without uplifts, and they have a fraction of the money that doctors earn.
Reduced pay How about this one..In the TV industry we used to be contracted to shoot one hour of TV Drama in 15 days...now it is down to 10.5 days..money is exactly the same per week but the contracts are much shorter...massive drop in income for most of the people employed there... maybe they should go on strike..unfortunately no one would notice.. Doctors going on strike will definitely cost some people their lives..
Scenario 1: similar to EU election of 2014. UKIP on 24% vote, Con on 27% and Lab on 23%, Greens on 7% and LDs on 9%. I get a Leave victory of 51.5% to 48.5%
Scenario 2: bigger two-party turnout. UKIP on 18%, Con on 33%, Lab on 27%, Green on 4%, and LD on 8.5%. Wafer-thin Leave lead of 50.08% to 49.93%.
On both scenarios I get a wafer thin Leave victory - the only thing that flips it is if I adjust the Conservative split.
For example, if I flip it to 40% Leave and 60% Remain then Remain wins instead by 56.5% to 43.5%.
What do you get if turnout is 75%?
I haven't run that. I don't consider it plausible for turnout to top the GE of 66% - AV ref only managed 42%.
If it did, I think voteshares would be broadly similar to the GE - see scenario 3 - with perhaps a slight favouring of UKIP and lessening of Labour.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
Judge Malky passes his verdict.
"She was drunk and wearing a short skirt. She should have been aware of the drugs slipped into her glass. As the young hussy was clearly asking for it, I find the Defendant 'Not Guilty'."
Scenario 1: similar to EU election of 2014. UKIP on 24% vote, Con on 27% and Lab on 23%, Greens on 7% and LDs on 9%. I get a Leave victory of 51.5% to 48.5%
Scenario 2: bigger two-party turnout. UKIP on 18%, Con on 33%, Lab on 27%, Green on 4%, and LD on 8.5%. Wafer-thin Leave lead of 50.08% to 49.93%.
On both scenarios I get a wafer thin Leave victory - the only thing that flips it is if I adjust the Conservative split.
For example, if I flip it to 40% Leave and 60% Remain then Remain wins instead by 56.5% to 43.5%.
"The party is increasingly the arena for an organisational battle between two opposed factions. The left faction around Corbyn is focused not so much on new politics or new ideas but simply on taking control of the party machinery. This is an entirely logical approach because, until that is achieved, it is harder to change policy or commitments.
The left’s priorities – and they are certainly the priorities of the Leninists Corbyn has brought in – are therefore to make procedural changes. Altering the rules for electing the leader to reduce the influence of MPs; strengthening the grip of the annual conference over policymaking; boosting the national executive at the expense of the shadow cabinet; clearing out opponents in the upper reaches of the party organisation; and, ultimately, deselecting centrist MPs and getting more leftwing, union-endorsed candidates in safe seats. Most Labour MPs oppose this process, for obvious reasons, but they prefer to stay quiet, which is also explicable."
Is it gauche to point out that I noted this a month ago?
They are all getting a substantial pay increase, 11%. Some may have to do some extra hours , just like most of the public do nowadays. They are just greedy. Lots of people have to work extra hours unpaid and weekends etc without uplifts, and they have a fraction of the money that doctors earn.
There base salary is being increased by 11% but their "normal" hours are being massively expanded to effectively eliminate overtime payments. Given that Junior Doctors already work at the limit (and beyond) of legal working hours there are no extra hours to take.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
If you were offered a new contract that had a substantial pay cut would you be happy or sad about it?
So far this year I have had all of my contracts cut by between 15 and 30% - in one case 50%. There is a tightening right across the board in every profession I know that has anything to do with contracting for the public sector and equivalent or deeper cuts in the private sector as well.
Am I happy about it? No. Do I accept it? Yes. It is only those in the privileged position of public sector employment who seem to think that their wages should only ever go up.
"The party is increasingly the arena for an organisational battle between two opposed factions. The left faction around Corbyn is focused not so much on new politics or new ideas but simply on taking control of the party machinery. This is an entirely logical approach because, until that is achieved, it is harder to change policy or commitments.
The left’s priorities – and they are certainly the priorities of the Leninists Corbyn has brought in – are therefore to make procedural changes. Altering the rules for electing the leader to reduce the influence of MPs; strengthening the grip of the annual conference over policymaking; boosting the national executive at the expense of the shadow cabinet; clearing out opponents in the upper reaches of the party organisation; and, ultimately, deselecting centrist MPs and getting more leftwing, union-endorsed candidates in safe seats. Most Labour MPs oppose this process, for obvious reasons, but they prefer to stay quiet, which is also explicable."
Is it gauche to point out that I noted this a month ago?
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
What utter, sheer sick rubbish.
We need to check your programming, Eliza. Your boolean tables for right and wrong appear to have become corrupted.
Scenario 1: similar to EU election of 2014. UKIP on 24% vote, Con on 27% and Lab on 23%, Greens on 7% and LDs on 9%. I get a Leave victory of 51.5% to 48.5%
Scenario 2: bigger two-party turnout. UKIP on 18%, Con on 33%, Lab on 27%, Green on 4%, and LD on 8.5%. Wafer-thin Leave lead of 50.08% to 49.93%.
On both scenarios I get a wafer thin Leave victory - the only thing that flips it is if I adjust the Conservative split.
For example, if I flip it to 40% Leave and 60% Remain then Remain wins instead by 56.5% to 43.5%.
What do you get if turnout is 75%?
I haven't run that. I don't consider it plausible for turnout to top the GE of 66% - AV ref only managed 42%.
If it did, I think voteshares would be broadly similar to the GE - see scenario 3 - with perhaps a slight favouring of UKIP and lessening of Labour.
Antifrank - just run another one for you at 70% turnout with a few tweaks as above. I get about 55.5 Remain and 44.5% Leave. If the Tories split 50/50.
Why? Basically, on that sort of turnout, I'm assuming a huge ABC turnout in the Home Counties and middle England for Remain on the back of Cameron's recommendation that swamps Leave Tories elsewhere
They are all getting a substantial pay increase, 11%. Some may have to do some extra hours , just like most of the public do nowadays. They are just greedy. Lots of people have to work extra hours unpaid and weekends etc without uplifts, and they have a fraction of the money that doctors earn.
There base salary is being increased by 11% but their "normal" hours are being massively expanded to effectively eliminate overtime payments. Given that Junior Doctors already work at the limit (and beyond) of legal working hours there are no extra hours to take.
It is a pay cut.
Boo Hoo.
How about they're asked to work fewer hours, for lower salaries? Somehow, I don't think they'd like that.
Most Junior Doctors become filthy rich doctors, with salaries and perks the majority of taxpayers and patients can never achieve in their wildest dreams.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
And so the idiocy begins.
Yes, the idiocy begins when you slime your way onto a thread. It'll stop when you slither back whence you came.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nuanced statement there Nick - "since they were appointed". Carefully excludes his key advisor - suspended from Labour - but in whom Corbyn still has confidence.
Applies to him too. Has he said anything objectionable since he was appointed? I don't like the nasty personal style of his past comments, but so long as he cuts them out now, I don't insist on retrospective vetting. But it's important to insist on that - as McDonnell wryly says, "Jeremy is trying to teach me to be a nicer person" :-).
In any party shift of position on the spectrum, you're going to get people who were previously harsh critics to revise their view, and people who were previously supporters to express vehement and sometimes personal opposition, like Southam. It's as pointless to blame Fisher for being previously critical of Labour as it is to be blame Southam for being previously supportive.
Oh for God's sake. Nick. Nice or nasty, They're mad lefties, they're going to be massively unpopular, and all this is obvious. If this doesn't matter to you because you don't think winning elections is particularly important, perhaps you should reflect on the fact that it is only because Tony Blair and Gordon Brown thought otherwise that you were an MP at all.
Scenario 1: similar to EU election of 2014. UKIP on 24% vote, Con on 27% and Lab on 23%, Greens on 7% and LDs on 9%. I get a Leave victory of 51.5% to 48.5%
Scenario 2: bigger two-party turnout. UKIP on 18%, Con on 33%, Lab on 27%, Green on 4%, and LD on 8.5%. Wafer-thin Leave lead of 50.08% to 49.93%.
On both scenarios I get a wafer thin Leave victory - the only thing that flips it is if I adjust the Conservative split.
For example, if I flip it to 40% Leave and 60% Remain then Remain wins instead by 56.5% to 43.5%.
What do you get if turnout is 75%?
I haven't run that. I don't consider it plausible for turnout to top the GE of 66% - AV ref only managed 42%.
If it did, I think voteshares would be broadly similar to the GE - see scenario 3 - with perhaps a slight favouring of UKIP and lessening of Labour.
I'm expecting a high turnout for this referendum unless it is obviously going to be clearcut (either way).
Scenario 1: similar to EU election of 2014. UKIP on 24% vote, Con on 27% and Lab on 23%, Greens on 7% and LDs on 9%. I get a Leave victory of 51.5% to 48.5%
Scenario 2: bigger two-party turnout. UKIP on 18%, Con on 33%, Lab on 27%, Green on 4%, and LD on 8.5%. Wafer-thin Leave lead of 50.08% to 49.93%.
On both scenarios I get a wafer thin Leave victory - the only thing that flips it is if I adjust the Conservative split.
For example, if I flip it to 40% Leave and 60% Remain then Remain wins instead by 56.5% to 43.5%.
No, I'm just playing with numbers for now. I'm assuming the EU ref will be somewhere between a EU parliamentary election turnout/result and a general election.
I don't think it will hit indyref levels.
I think that puts broadly natural filters on turnout/age. High Remain turnout in London and the South East. High Leave on the eastern seaboard and south-west.
@MichaelLCrick: Jeremy Corbyn won't try to change leadership rules at Labour NEC on Tues, tho' current rules unclear & will have to be clarified long term
"I think the BMA are being rather misleading here, because the new contract proposals will actually reduce the maximum hours. So the argument that it is unsafe because people will be treated by tired doctors just doesn't hold weight, I'm afraid.
"Even if they give this notice, they know the NHS is under great pressure.
"To have three days where effectively we are cancelling all routine procedures, the kind of procedures that consultants undertake – for example, cardiac catheterisations for people who are having a heart attack – how are consultants going to be able to get on with that sort of really important work?"
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
If you were offered a new contract that had a substantial pay cut would you be happy or sad about it?
They are all getting a substantial pay increase, 11%. Some may have to do some extra hours , just like most of the public do nowadays. They are just greedy. Lots of people have to work extra hours unpaid and weekends etc without uplifts, and they have a fraction of the money that doctors earn.
Holyrood is sticking to the old deal. Some sensible people running recruitment there could fill all their vacancies quickly at the expense of England.
Nuanced statement there Nick - "since they were appointed". Carefully excludes his key advisor - suspended from Labour - but in whom Corbyn still has confidence.
Applies to him too. Has he said anything objectionable since he was appointed? I don't like the nasty personal style of his past comments, but so long as he cuts them out now, I don't insist on retrospective vetting. But it's important to insist on that - as McDonnell wryly says, "Jeremy is trying to teach me to be a nicer person" :-).
In any party shift of position on the spectrum, you're going to get people who were previously harsh critics to revise their view, and people who were previously supporters to express vehement and sometimes personal opposition, like Southam. It's as pointless to blame Fisher for being previously critical of Labour as it is to be blame Southam for being previously supportive.
Amazing, so jeremy and John have only just met after all these years.....
My concern for the politics of this junior doctor strike is that there seems to have been little preparation by the Govt ahead of this show down. The NHS is sadly regarded as a religion by most voters and therefore the doctors can play that card many times until perceptions change. How many delayed ops or consultations will there be arising from the strikes? Statistically we could be talking about hundreds of unnecessary deaths caused by later diagnosis, treatment and action. A hidden number of graves that statisticians may eventually unravel many years later.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
So what you are saying is that because they will not negotiate if Hunt has preconditions, they would rather not negotiate at all and have him simply impose the changes which they could otherwise have mitigated through negotiation. And in the meantime they will let a few patients die to prove a point.
I am sorry I never realised our doctors were so fecking stupid.
So you're saying NHS doctors are basically murderers?
Sky reporting we're 33/35 high income countries for still births. I really don't see what the NHS has so much to smug about.
It'll be interesting to see what the experts think the cause of this is: is it problems with the way pregnant women are handled by the NHS, or lifestyle issues, a.n.other issue or a combination?
My concern for the politics of this junior doctor strike is that there seems to have been little preparation by the Govt ahead of this show down. The NHS is sadly regarded as a religion by most voters and therefore the doctors can play that card many times until perceptions change. How many delayed ops or consultations will there be arising from the strikes? Statistically we could be talking about hundreds of unnecessary deaths caused by later diagnosis, treatment and action. A hidden number of graves that statisticians may eventually unravel many years later.
The usually-excellent Dr Fox used to say on here that no patients would suffer, until he was slapped down a little for it.
Let's see how the public react to the strikes. I'm not sure all their sympathy will be with the doctors ...
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
What utter, sheer sick rubbish.
We need to check your programming, Eliza. Your boolean tables for right and wrong appear to have become corrupted.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
What utter, sheer sick rubbish.
We need to check your programming, Eliza. Your boolean tables for right and wrong appear to have become corrupted.
I've noticed quite a few cases of women sexually abusing other women, or girls, over the past couple of years. I don't whether that's something that's becoming more widespread in our society, or simply down to a greater readiness to prosecute (not too long ago, it was probably thought impossible for such a thing to happen).
Nuanced statement there Nick - "since they were appointed". Carefully excludes his key advisor - suspended from Labour - but in whom Corbyn still has confidence.
Applies to him too. Has he said anything objectionable since he was appointed? I don't like the nasty personal style of his past comments, but so long as he cuts them out now, I don't insist on retrospective vetting. But it's important to insist on that - as McDonnell wryly says, "Jeremy is trying to teach me to be a nicer person" :-).
In any party shift of position on the spectrum, you're going to get people who were previously harsh critics to revise their view, and people who were previously supporters to express vehement and sometimes personal opposition, like Southam. It's as pointless to blame Fisher for being previously critical of Labour as it is to be blame Southam for being previously supportive.
Oh for God's sake. Nick. Nice or nasty, They're mad lefties, they're going to be massively unpopular, and all this is obvious. If this doesn't matter to you because you don't think winning elections is particularly important, perhaps you should reflect on the fact that it is only because Tony Blair and Gordon Brown thought otherwise that you were an MP at all.
ha ha - love it - when will NPXMP realise it's not only the baby eaters who think he's completely lost the plot since the voters gave him the boot for a second time!
My concern for the politics of this junior doctor strike is that there seems to have been little preparation by the Govt ahead of this show down. The NHS is sadly regarded as a religion by most voters and therefore the doctors can play that card many times until perceptions change. How many delayed ops or consultations will there be arising from the strikes? Statistically we could be talking about hundreds of unnecessary deaths caused by later diagnosis, treatment and action. A hidden number of graves that statisticians may eventually unravel many years later.
The usually-excellent Dr Fox used to say on here that no patients would suffer, until he was slapped down a little for it.
Let's see how the public react to the strikes. I'm not sure all their sympathy will be with the doctors ...
I don't recall ever saying no patient would suffer.
What I did say is that more would suffer from the long term damage to juniors training and resultant unfilled posts from the new contract. We have a lot of vacancies in the East Midlands.
Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn Nice nugget from @FrankRGardner on #JihadiJohn before he left UK: he had bad breath and couldn't pull.
Young men are pumped full of hormones: they are at the peak of physical fitness and aggression, bot physical and sexual. It gets worse if they are in groups where they act as a pack.
No real team or competitive sport, precious few jobs and very little opportunity to meet women in the middle-east.
What else is there for them?
Edit: i recognise the UK is different, but if isolated culturally, a lot of those same factors still apply.
More shagging, less shooting.
Or sport, Mrs Free. Lots of good wholesome games of rugger.
True enough. Sport is wonderful. But it does rather lack opportunities to spoil lovely ladies, such as myself
My concern for the politics of this junior doctor strike is that there seems to have been little preparation by the Govt ahead of this show down. The NHS is sadly regarded as a religion by most voters and therefore the doctors can play that card many times until perceptions change. How many delayed ops or consultations will there be arising from the strikes? Statistically we could be talking about hundreds of unnecessary deaths caused by later diagnosis, treatment and action. A hidden number of graves that statisticians may eventually unravel many years later.
The usually-excellent Dr Fox used to say on here that no patients would suffer, until he was slapped down a little for it.
Let's see how the public react to the strikes. I'm not sure all their sympathy will be with the doctors ...
My guess about general perceptions among the public is;
a) Tax credit recipients = hard working poor b) Doctors = well paid
How close these perceptions are to the truth doesn't really matter. Perception prevails as we've seen with (a).
My concern for the politics of this junior doctor strike is that there seems to have been little preparation by the Govt ahead of this show down. The NHS is sadly regarded as a religion by most voters and therefore the doctors can play that card many times until perceptions change. How many delayed ops or consultations will there be arising from the strikes? Statistically we could be talking about hundreds of unnecessary deaths caused by later diagnosis, treatment and action. A hidden number of graves that statisticians may eventually unravel many years later.
The usually-excellent Dr Fox used to say on here that no patients would suffer, until he was slapped down a little for it.
Let's see how the public react to the strikes. I'm not sure all their sympathy will be with the doctors ...
I don't recall ever saying no patient would suffer.
What I did say is that more would suffer from the long term damage to juniors training and resultant unfilled posts from the new contract. We have a lot of vacancies in the East Midlands.
My memory is that you did say exactly that - both myself and Ms Free jumped on you for it.
Leaving that to one side: what would you do to restructure doctor's pay and training to ensure that we have enough doctors working safely ?
DR FOX..So you agree that some patients will suffer and some may die because the Doctors are willfully withdrawing their services..in order to get more money..Rightly or wrongly that is going to generate some great headlines when the first deaths begin to occur... and they will..What Loony is in charge of the BMA ..
DR FOX..So you agree that some patients will suffer and some may die because the Doctors are willfully withdrawing their services..in order to get more money..Rightly or wrongly that is going to generate some great headlines when the first deaths begin to occur... and they will..What Loony is in charge of the BMA ..
My concern for the politics of this junior doctor strike is that there seems to have been little preparation by the Govt ahead of this show down. The NHS is sadly regarded as a religion by most voters and therefore the doctors can play that card many times until perceptions change. How many delayed ops or consultations will there be arising from the strikes? Statistically we could be talking about hundreds of unnecessary deaths caused by later diagnosis, treatment and action. A hidden number of graves that statisticians may eventually unravel many years later.
The usually-excellent Dr Fox used to say on here that no patients would suffer, until he was slapped down a little for it.
Let's see how the public react to the strikes. I'm not sure all their sympathy will be with the doctors ...
I don't recall ever saying no patient would suffer.
What I did say is that more would suffer from the long term damage to juniors training and resultant unfilled posts from the new contract. We have a lot of vacancies in the East Midlands.
My memory is that you did say exactly that - both myself and Ms Free jumped on you for it.
Leaving that to one side: what would you do to restructure doctor's pay and training to ensure that we have enough doctors working safely ?
That would take some thought, so not a quick answer, and I have patients booked this afternoon (and working all day tommorow too) so have to get going shortly.
But pissing off the entire workforce (nurses are suspecting that their unsocial hours payments are next for the chop) is not a good way to get staff positively engaged in all the real issues facing the NHS in the UK. All training junior Doctors posts in the UK are in the NHS. The private sector does not train.
I am reading that the Peshmerga have effectively sliced ISIS into two pieces. Are we looking at the beginning of the end game...???
(craves Yokel comment...)
Leaving aside LuckyGuy's claims about Russian 'victory' over ISIS in Syria, there's been some success or the Kurds and the US in Iraq: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/34806556
ISIS needs tackling in both Syria and Iraq concurrently. Like a balloon, if they're squeezed in one country and not the other, they'll just retreat into the other country. The only way of 'defeating'(*) them is to give them no safe haven in those countries.
(*) Not that I'm sure what a defeat of ISIS will be like. It's an ideology, and it will just reappear to destablise another country such as Yemen.
My concern for the politics of this junior doctor strike is that there seems to have been little preparation by the Govt ahead of this show down. The NHS is sadly regarded as a religion by most voters and therefore the doctors can play that card many times until perceptions change. How many delayed ops or consultations will there be arising from the strikes? Statistically we could be talking about hundreds of unnecessary deaths caused by later diagnosis, treatment and action. A hidden number of graves that statisticians may eventually unravel many years later.
The usually-excellent Dr Fox used to say on here that no patients would suffer, until he was slapped down a little for it.
Let's see how the public react to the strikes. I'm not sure all their sympathy will be with the doctors ...
I don't recall ever saying no patient would suffer.
What I did say is that more would suffer from the long term damage to juniors training and resultant unfilled posts from the new contract. We have a lot of vacancies in the East Midlands.
My memory is that you did say exactly that - both myself and Ms Free jumped on you for it.
Leaving that to one side: what would you do to restructure doctor's pay and training to ensure that we have enough doctors working safely ?
That would take some thought, so not a quick answer, and I have patients booked this afternoon (and working all day tommorow too) so have to get going shortly.
But pissing off the entire workforce (nurses are suspecting that their unsocial hours payments are next for the chop) is not a good way to get staff positively engaged in all the real issues facing the NHS in the UK. All training junior Doctors posts in the UK are in the NHS. The private sector does not train.
I fear we have barely begun with the crisis the NHS is facing over the next few years.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
Judge Malky passes his verdict.
"She was drunk and wearing a short skirt. She should have been aware of the drugs slipped into her glass. As the young hussy was clearly asking for it, I find the Defendant 'Not Guilty'."
It wasn't rape was it though? She consented to have sex with the other person
If a man for some reason made a woman wear a blindfold each time they "had sex" and used a vibrator rather than his own dick, would that be a criminal offence?
My concern for the politics of this junior doctor strike is that there seems to have been little preparation by the Govt ahead of this show down. The NHS is sadly regarded as a religion by most voters and therefore the doctors can play that card many times until perceptions change. How many delayed ops or consultations will there be arising from the strikes? Statistically we could be talking about hundreds of unnecessary deaths caused by later diagnosis, treatment and action. A hidden number of graves that statisticians may eventually unravel many years later.
The usually-excellent Dr Fox used to say on here that no patients would suffer, until he was slapped down a little for it.
Let's see how the public react to the strikes. I'm not sure all their sympathy will be with the doctors ...
I don't recall ever saying no patient would suffer.
What I did say is that more would suffer from the long term damage to juniors training and resultant unfilled posts from the new contract. We have a lot of vacancies in the East Midlands.
My memory is that you did say exactly that - both myself and Ms Free jumped on you for it.
Leaving that to one side: what would you do to restructure doctor's pay and training to ensure that we have enough doctors working safely ?
That would take some thought, so not a quick answer, and I have patients booked this afternoon (and working all day tommorow too) so have to get going shortly.
But pissing off the entire workforce (nurses are suspecting that their unsocial hours payments are next for the chop) is not a good way to get staff positively engaged in all the real issues facing the NHS in the UK. All training junior Doctors posts in the UK are in the NHS. The private sector does not train.
I don’t think many NHS staff oppose 7 day working in principle; they just don’t see why their wages should be reduced to bring it in. And doing so will not be cheap.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
Judge Malky passes his verdict.
"She was drunk and wearing a short skirt. She should have been aware of the drugs slipped into her glass. As the young hussy was clearly asking for it, I find the Defendant 'Not Guilty'."
It wasn't rape was it though? She consented to have sex with the other person
If a man for some reason made a woman wear a blindfold each time they "had sex" and used a vibrator rather than his own dick, would that be a criminal offence?
If it was M/F, it would amount to rape by deception.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
So what you are saying is that because they will not negotiate if Hunt has preconditions, they would rather not negotiate at all and have him simply impose the changes which they could otherwise have mitigated through negotiation. And in the meantime they will let a few patients die to prove a point.
I am sorry I never realised our doctors were so fecking stupid.
So you're saying NHS doctors are basically murderers?
If they let people die because they are on strike then it might not be legally murder but I would consider it such morally Yes.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
Judge Malky passes his verdict.
"She was drunk and wearing a short skirt. She should have been aware of the drugs slipped into her glass. As the young hussy was clearly asking for it, I find the Defendant 'Not Guilty'."
It wasn't rape was it though? She consented to have sex with the other person
If a man for some reason made a woman wear a blindfold each time they "had sex" and used a vibrator rather than his own dick, would that be a criminal offence?
If it was M/F, it would amount to rape by deception.
I don't get it.. someone consented to have sex, the other person DIDNT have sex with them.. and that's rape?
Clearly the polls are well beyond any kind of margin of error. It's not just phone v online. ICM's online taken at the same time is 16 points different
All we can do is wait for a polling analysis from one of the polling gurus.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
Judge Malky passes his verdict.
"She was drunk and wearing a short skirt. She should have been aware of the drugs slipped into her glass. As the young hussy was clearly asking for it, I find the Defendant 'Not Guilty'."
It wasn't rape was it though? She consented to have sex with the other person
If a man for some reason made a woman wear a blindfold each time they "had sex" and used a vibrator rather than his own dick, would that be a criminal offence?
If it was M/F, it would amount to rape by deception.
I don't get it.. someone consented to have sex, the other person DIDNT have sex with them.. and that's rape?
Well, for consent to be a defence to a charge of rape, (or sexual assault) you must not only consent to the sex, but consent to sex with the other person. If you consent to sex with A, but in reality, the other party is B, then there is no consent.
If a man lied about his identity, and used a vibrator, then I don't think it would technically amount to a rape, but it would be a very serious sexual assault (as it is in this particular case). If he used his penis to penetrate the woman, then it would be rape by deception.
Rape (and sexual assault) by deception has been a crime since the early 19th century.
Lots of NHS spin this morning, I see. It is a shame because it is crowding out the one thing Jeremy Hunt has got right, which is to set up NHS-wide stillbirth case-by-case reviews, presumably inspired by the system airlines use for crashes and near-misses. The devil is in the detail, as there must also be a no-blame culture, for instance, but what has bedevilled medicine for centuries is its failure to learn from its own mistakes. Medicine is too often a craft rather than a science, in that respect.
Clearly the polls are well beyond any kind of margin of error. It's not just phone v online. ICM's online taken at the same time is 16 points different
All we can do is wait for a polling analysis from one of the polling gurus.
The question is whether those two million Conservative voters will move.
They say they will, if Cameron gets a good deal, but will they? What if he gets a very average or poor deal but then enthusiastically tries to sell it as a great deal? Will they all still take him at his word and migrate?
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
Judge Malky passes his verdict.
"She was drunk and wearing a short skirt. She should have been aware of the drugs slipped into her glass. As the young hussy was clearly asking for it, I find the Defendant 'Not Guilty'."
It wasn't rape was it though? She consented to have sex with the other person
If a man for some reason made a woman wear a blindfold each time they "had sex" and used a vibrator rather than his own dick, would that be a criminal offence?
If it was M/F, it would amount to rape by deception.
I don't get it.. someone consented to have sex, the other person DIDNT have sex with them.. and that's rape?
As far as I can see she was not convicted of rape but of sexual assault. Under English law you can only be found guilty of rape if there was penile insertion. Which is why ludicrously women cannot be found guilty of raping men.
Peter Kellner is very right here - without getting all Sun Tzu, IMHO this referendum should only have been called once a clear consensus and majority to Leave had already been established:
Peter Kellner is very right here - without getting all Sun Tzu, IMHO this referendum should only have been called once a clear consensus and majority to Leave had already been established:
But Cameron doesn't want to leave. Nor does he want anything more than the absolute minimum of change to secure a Remain vote. He is the one calling the shots here to ensure we stay in at almost any cost.
Peter Kellner is very right here - without getting all Sun Tzu, IMHO this referendum should only have been called once a clear consensus and majority to Leave had already been established:
In the past three weeks Left-wingers in Wal-thamstow have used small meetings to spark two challenges to party officers. Further bids to replace established people with Leftists are expected at the constituency AGM on Thursday.
''If they let people die because they are on strike then it might not be legally murder but I would consider it such morally Yes.''
Should medical courses in the UK should come with more strings attached???
Yes. Why should Doctors train at our expense and then bugger off to Australia for more money?
We should make students pay tuition fees. Oh wait ...
Will they pay them back if they go straight to Oz?
No; if a student emigrates after graduating then tuition fees cannot be recovered.
Just did a quick bit of research on this and noticed that the New Zealand law is that you can be arrested and prevented from leaving the country if you try to leave with outstanding student loan debt and having been making the payments. Maybe we should look at a similar scheme here.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
Judge Malky passes his verdict.
"She was drunk and wearing a short skirt. She should have been aware of the drugs slipped into her glass. As the young hussy was clearly asking for it, I find the Defendant 'Not Guilty'."
It wasn't rape was it though? She consented to have sex with the other person
If a man for some reason made a woman wear a blindfold each time they "had sex" and used a vibrator rather than his own dick, would that be a criminal offence?
If it was M/F, it would amount to rape by deception.
I don't get it.. someone consented to have sex, the other person DIDNT have sex with them.. and that's rape?
Well, for consent to be a defence to a charge of rape, (or sexual assault) you must not only consent to the sex, but consent to sex with the other person. If you consent to sex with A, but in reality, the other party is B, then there is no consent.
If a man lied about his identity, and used a vibrator, then I don't think it would technically amount to a rape, but it would be a very serious sexual assault (as it is in this particular case). If he used his penis to penetrate the woman, then it would be rape by deception.
Rape (and sexual assault) by deception has been a crime since the early 19th century.
To be specific:
Deception vitiates consent, other by application of an irrebuitable presumption (s.76), by removing the freedom or capacity to consent under s.74, or by being a relevant circumstance for the purpose of 1(2), 2(2) etc, whichever applies.
It would have been a permissable conclusion for jury that the victim was not, in fact deceived - that she knew full well what was going on. I assume from the result that that conclusion was not drawn.
Comments
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=1b8c27812b5639c97eae8a815&id=232b675067&e=d50c4c3e1b
Splits leave/remain are:
UKIP - 90/10
Con/UUP - 60/40
Lab - 30/70
LD - 20/80
SNP - 25/75
PC - 25/75
SDLP/SF - 10/90
DUP - 70/30
Others - 45/55
Scenario 1: similar to EU election of 2014. UKIP on 24% vote, Con on 27% and Lab on 23%, Greens on 7% and LDs on 9%. I get a Leave victory of 51.5% to 48.5%
Scenario 2: bigger two-party turnout. UKIP on 18%, Con on 33%, Lab on 27%, Green on 4%, and LD on 8.5%. Wafer-thin Leave lead of 50.08% to 49.93%.
On both scenarios I get a wafer thin Leave victory - the only thing that flips it is if I adjust the Conservative split.
For example, if I flip it to 40% Leave and 60% Remain then Remain wins instead by 56.5% to 43.5%.
Perhaps it's time for HMG to drop the ring fencing, and adopt the spending plan that Labour would have imposed on the NHS?
I've worked weekends - still do sometimes. I've done 90 hour weeks, not had a full holiday allocation. I could have walked. My choice.
Am I happy about it? No. Do I accept it? Yes. It is only those in the privileged position of public sector employment who seem to think that their wages should only ever go up.
Flipping the Con split changes it to: Leave at 40.21% and Remain at 59.79%
This tells me that (a) it's very unlikely Remain will poll higher than 60% and (b) the David Cameron effect is all important.
If Cameron signals he might resign if it's a Leave, would that push more Con Leavers to Remain?
They are just greedy. Lots of people have to work extra hours unpaid and weekends etc without uplifts, and they have a fraction of the money that doctors earn.
If it did, I think voteshares would be broadly similar to the GE - see scenario 3 - with perhaps a slight favouring of UKIP and lessening of Labour.
"She was drunk and wearing a short skirt. She should have been aware of the drugs slipped into her glass. As the young hussy was clearly asking for it, I find the Defendant 'Not Guilty'."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11989201/South-Lanarkshire-Council-deputy-leader-Jackie-Burns-fined-for-urinating-in-street.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/12/new-politics-old-politics-tribalism-labour-conservatives
"The party is increasingly the arena for an organisational battle between two opposed factions. The left faction around Corbyn is focused not so much on new politics or new ideas but simply on taking control of the party machinery. This is an entirely logical approach because, until that is achieved, it is harder to change policy or commitments.
The left’s priorities – and they are certainly the priorities of the Leninists Corbyn has brought in – are therefore to make procedural changes. Altering the rules for electing the leader to reduce the influence of MPs; strengthening the grip of the annual conference over policymaking; boosting the national executive at the expense of the shadow cabinet; clearing out opponents in the upper reaches of the party organisation; and, ultimately, deselecting centrist MPs and getting more leftwing, union-endorsed candidates in safe seats. Most Labour MPs oppose this process, for obvious reasons, but they prefer to stay quiet, which is also explicable."
Is it gauche to point out that I noted this a month ago?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/10/10/antifrank-says-corbyns-strategy-is-we-only-have-to-be-lucky-once/
It is a pay cut.
Angels and saints don't fight over money.
We need to check your programming, Eliza. Your boolean tables for right and wrong appear to have become corrupted.
Why? Basically, on that sort of turnout, I'm assuming a huge ABC turnout in the Home Counties and middle England for Remain on the back of Cameron's recommendation that swamps Leave Tories elsewhere
How about they're asked to work fewer hours, for lower salaries? Somehow, I don't think they'd like that.
Most Junior Doctors become filthy rich doctors, with salaries and perks the majority of taxpayers and patients can never achieve in their wildest dreams.
Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who chairs the Commons Health Select Committee, warns patients could be at risk if full walkout goes ahead
http://bit.ly/1WW4lPr
I don't think it will hit indyref levels.
I think that puts broadly natural filters on turnout/age. High Remain turnout in London and the South East. High Leave on the eastern seaboard and south-west.
"I think the BMA are being rather misleading here, because the new contract proposals will actually reduce the maximum hours. So the argument that it is unsafe because people will be treated by tired doctors just doesn't hold weight, I'm afraid.
"Even if they give this notice, they know the NHS is under great pressure.
"To have three days where effectively we are cancelling all routine procedures, the kind of procedures that consultants undertake – for example, cardiac catheterisations for people who are having a heart attack – how are consultants going to be able to get on with that sort of really important work?"
@WillHillBet: Will David Warner go on to break Brian Lara's 400* Test record score? We're 5/1 he does it.
Let's see how the public react to the strikes. I'm not sure all their sympathy will be with the doctors ...
What I did say is that more would suffer from the long term damage to juniors training and resultant unfilled posts from the new contract. We have a lot of vacancies in the East Midlands.
a) Tax credit recipients = hard working poor
b) Doctors = well paid
How close these perceptions are to the truth doesn't really matter. Perception prevails as we've seen with (a).
Leaving that to one side: what would you do to restructure doctor's pay and training to ensure that we have enough doctors working safely ?
I think it was Ken Clarke who said on QT that the BMA were by far the most militant worker representatives he ever had to deal with.
(craves Yokel comment...)
But pissing off the entire workforce (nurses are suspecting that their unsocial hours payments are next for the chop) is not a good way to get staff positively engaged in all the real issues facing the NHS in the UK. All training junior Doctors posts in the UK are in the NHS. The private sector does not train.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/34806556
ISIS needs tackling in both Syria and Iraq concurrently. Like a balloon, if they're squeezed in one country and not the other, they'll just retreat into the other country. The only way of 'defeating'(*) them is to give them no safe haven in those countries.
(*) Not that I'm sure what a defeat of ISIS will be like. It's an ideology, and it will just reappear to destablise another country such as Yemen.
If a man for some reason made a woman wear a blindfold each time they "had sex" and used a vibrator rather than his own dick, would that be a criminal offence?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9544#respond
And the view of her majesty's official opposition is......???????????????????????????
Should medical courses in the UK should come with more strings attached???
I think we can expect some more LEAVE leads.
If a man lied about his identity, and used a vibrator, then I don't think it would technically amount to a rape, but it would be a very serious sexual assault (as it is in this particular case). If he used his penis to penetrate the woman, then it would be rape by deception.
Rape (and sexual assault) by deception has been a crime since the early 19th century.
Do the fees cover the full cost of the training? I have to admit I have no idea.
They say they will, if Cameron gets a good deal, but will they? What if he gets a very average or poor deal but then enthusiastically tries to sell it as a great deal? Will they all still take him at his word and migrate?
I don't know.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/the-power-of-uncertainty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/11992871/Sachin-Tendulkar-is-asked-for-his-name-by-British-Airways-internet-reacts-with-disbelief.html
Deception vitiates consent, other by application of an irrebuitable presumption (s.76), by removing the freedom or capacity to consent under s.74, or by being a relevant circumstance for the purpose of 1(2), 2(2) etc, whichever applies.
It would have been a permissable conclusion for jury that the victim was not, in fact deceived - that she knew full well what was going on. I assume from the result that that conclusion was not drawn.