Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jeremy Corbyn cannot afford to lose trade union support ove

24

Comments

  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,079
    Scott_P said:

    EPG said:

    The probability of medium-term Scottish exit from UK was higher at end of 2014 than at beginning of 2014

    The Zoomers were wrong last time. They are not in better shape now.
    You're seriously saying the SNP is in a worse state now than Summer 2014
    You must actually believe PB Tory Holyrood Majority Nailed On
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,210

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Who says ISIS are a death cult?
    Hopefully this will set a trend and they will end up exterminating themselves
    The only concern is they continue to get a flood of new recruits to replace those they kill. We have already had reports that those that control ISIS already use recruits from certain parts of the world as cannon fodder, with the justification that they are lesser because they aren't direct descendants. While other are not used for suicide bombing etc. It could be they are massively racist or it could be that they are keeping those that are more useful to them more out of the fire line, or most likely both.
    Well if you have a high chance of being burnt alive if you fail to perform a few would be recruits might find themselves washing their hair when the next jihadi comes calling!
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Chris_A said:

    Speedy said:

    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.

    For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.
    Perhaps because I'm a bread and butter kind of voter.
    Because the £30 billion could be far, far better spent elsewhere if not first on defence equipment that will actually be useful and be used.
    £30 billion diverted to conventional weapons would be salami sliced away to nothing within a few years.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    MikeL said:

    Whatever you think about Trident it's completely bizarre to decide it's future based on jobs.

    Suppose we spent £5 billion per year employing people to count lamp-posts (or some other pointless activity).

    Would we say we must carry on counting lamp-posts because if we don't it'll cost jobs?

    The answer is that if an activity has no purpose it should be stopped and resources redirected to something which does have a purpose.

    Now I personally think Trident is worthwhile - but that is a separate issue.

    Fair enough, but if you were the leader of the Amalgamated Union of Lamp Post, Bus Stop and Fire Hydrant Counters I'd expect you to bat for your members' jobs.

    That's no reason why we should listen to you of course.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,079
    Wanderer said:

    On topic, the strangest thing of all is that Labour should bang its head into the wall on Trident when it has no say in the matter and won't until it gets back into government. People talk as they are deciding whether to renew Trident. They are not. They are deciding whether, hypothetically, they would if they happened to be in power.

    The answer is to kick the issue into the very long grass.

    Corbyn and pals genuinely are bears of very little brain
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pentagon-2-u-s-navy-boats-held-iran-military-n495031

    "Iranian military forces seized two U.S. Navy boats Tuesday and are detaining them on Iran's Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf, senior U.S. officials told NBC News.

    The officials said it's unclear whether the 10 American sailors aboard two small riverine vessels had strayed into Iranian territorial waters before they were captured.

    The sailors — nine men and one woman — were on a training mission around noon ET when one of the boats may have experienced mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian-claimed waters, officials added. Iran's coast guard took them into custody."

    Farsi Island, a treasure island for satire.

    "This is not serious situation, this is a Farsi"
  • Options

    Chris Patten proves that he's a top egg

    Oxford will not rewrite history says Oxford Chancellor, Lord Patten, #RhodesMustNotFall

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYjR8WQW8AY-ug3.jpg

    Crickey, he might actually do something right for once. Makes a change from his disastrous spell at the BBC, where he didn't have a clue about anything.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    watford30 said:

    Chris_A said:

    Speedy said:

    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.

    For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.
    Perhaps because I'm a bread and butter kind of voter.
    Because the £30 billion could be far, far better spent elsewhere if not first on defence equipment that will actually be useful and be used.
    £30 billion diverted to conventional weapons would be salami sliced away to nothing within a few years.
    Indeed Brown wasted 10 billion at the stroke of a pen on aircraft carriers that were not fit for purpose at the design stage and could carry the right aircraft..

    Brown was a genius at wasting money
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    TOPPING said:

    MikeK said:

    What the hell is wrong with the US Armed forces these days, have they been poisoned by Obama politics?
    https://twitter.com/AJENews/status/687032116635373568

    might give some enlightenment

    foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/12/obamas-failed-command-military-state-of-the-union/
    I knew all of that @TOPPING, I was being rhetorical. Not only the US, most western forces lack savvy generals. Very few of them have fought an actual battle except in war games. Add to that, that politics has diminished the fighting services.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,210
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    EPG said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    At the moment that seems the case, Bloomberg would win some moderate Republicans too, not just centrist Democrats so I don't think that would be enough to overturn a 5% Sanders lead over Trump
    Moderate Republicans are in fact the main support base for Mr Trump
    Because if you are moderate in the Republican Party, it probably means you are economic centre or populist but interested in the identity politics he espouses
    You are talking about the median Republican voter, ideologically more moderate Republicans ie country club types, wealthy suburbanites, fiscally conservative but not intrinsically anti immigration, may well be tempted by Bloomberg
    I think the polling evidence is th
    White working class Democrats are often conservative and often vote Republican at the Presidential level, they are not moderates
    It depends what is meant by "moderates". They're probably well to the Left of the Republican establishment on economics, not devoutly religious, but are fired up about immigration and national security issues.

    My understanding is that Trump doesn't poll so strongly with the voters who are more ideologically conservative (who would favour Cruz).
    Those conservatives will still happily vote for Trump against Hillary or Sanders, the ones who might vote for Bloomberg are relatively wealthy, fiscally conservative and relaxed about immigration, probably employing a few immigrants themselves
  • Options
    GaiusGaius Posts: 227
    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    The american version of Corbynism?

    Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.

    Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.

    Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.


    Trump is going to be the next president.

    (Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    edited January 2016
    This years fashion advice....

    “Make the colours go with each other. Wearing a red or yellow shirt with black pants (trousers) will get you noticed."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12096095/isil-security-jihadist-advice.html

    Apparently beards are also out this year, and alcohol based aftershaves are in...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,210
    Gaius said:

    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    The american version of Corbynism?

    Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.

    Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.

    Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.


    Trump is going to be the next president.

    (Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).

    Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,210
    Speedy said:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pentagon-2-u-s-navy-boats-held-iran-military-n495031

    "Iranian military forces seized two U.S. Navy boats Tuesday and are detaining them on Iran's Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf, senior U.S. officials told NBC News.

    The officials said it's unclear whether the 10 American sailors aboard two small riverine vessels had strayed into Iranian territorial waters before they were captured.

    The sailors — nine men and one woman — were on a training mission around noon ET when one of the boats may have experienced mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian-claimed waters, officials added. Iran's coast guard took them into custody."

    Farsi Island, a treasure island for satire.

    "This is not serious situation, this is a Farsi"

    'One senior official told NBC News the Iranians understand it was a mistake and have agreed to release the Americans in international waters within hours.'
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pentagon-2-u-s-navy-boats-held-iran-military-n495031
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    watford30 said:

    Chris_A said:

    Speedy said:

    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.

    For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.
    Perhaps because I'm a bread and butter kind of voter.
    Because the £30 billion could be far, far better spent elsewhere if not first on defence equipment that will actually be useful and be used.
    £30 billion diverted to conventional weapons would be salami sliced away to nothing within a few years.
    Indeed Brown wasted 10 billion at the stroke of a pen on aircraft carriers that were not fit for purpose at the design stage and could carry the right aircraft..

    Brown was a genius at wasting money
    should read couldn't carry the right aircraft
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    watford30 said:

    Chris_A said:

    Speedy said:

    Great post from Keiran Pedley. This is important.

    I can't see Jeremy Corbyn backing down. This could be a huge fist fight.

    For me I can't understand why they think there is any appeal in this marginal issue almost 30 years since the cold war ended.
    Perhaps because I'm a bread and butter kind of voter.
    Because the £30 billion could be far, far better spent elsewhere if not first on defence equipment that will actually be useful and be used.
    £30 billion diverted to conventional weapons would be salami sliced away to nothing within a few years.
    Indeed Brown wasted 10 billion at the stroke of a pen on aircraft carriers that were not fit for purpose at the design stage and could carry the right aircraft..

    Brown was a genius at wasting money
    I wonder if they've managed to fit the propellors to the one that's already been floated. I believe it's been proving difficult to do so now it's in the water.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    Possible AfD bounce - +2 in latest INSA poll. INSA is the one that has always showed the best AfD rating for some reason, but still...

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/insa.htm
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,728
    MikeL said:

    Whatever you think about Trident it's completely bizarre to decide it's future based on jobs.

    Suppose we spent £5 billion per year employing people to count lamp-posts (or some other pointless activity).

    Would we say we must carry on counting lamp-posts because if we don't it'll cost jobs?

    The answer is that if an activity has no purpose it should be stopped and resources redirected to something which does have a purpose.

    Now I personally think Trident is worthwhile - but that is a separate issue.

    Well, one minor example is the production of nuclear subs. Last time we stopped building subs for a while, BAe ended up having to get Electric Boat from The US to teach them how to weld pressure hulls again.

    Building the four Trident replacement subs will keep the skill base rolling until the next order of attack subs. Which means that several billion of the price of Trident replacement would, in effect, have to be spent anyway.

    Unless you want to by all future subs from Germany or something.
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    He just needs to tell them he'd preserve the jobs. Not difficult.

    What would those people do? Dig holes and fill them back up?
    Diversity officers, Green living space enablement officers etc.
    The list of potential non job redeployment possibilities are endless.
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'Suppose we spent £5 billion per year employing people to count lamp-posts (or some other pointless activity).

    Would we say we must carry on counting lamp-posts because if we don't it'll cost jobs?'

    That used to be the basis of Labour's economic policy for many years
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited January 2016
    @PClipp

    'The Labour Government under Jim Callaghan, was one of the best this country has known. The only policies they could implement - during the Lib-Lab pact - were Labour policies that were approved by the Liberals. Most of the time, they just governed quietly, without too much change.'



    You do spout some rubbish, were you actually around at that time or just trying to rewrite history?

    Massive inflation, endless strikes including the winter of discontent & Denis Healey forced to go to the IMF with a begging bowl.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,249
    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    Tee Hee, I know how you feel. The time before last I was in A&E, 3am in the morning and the nurses had got me wired up to the machines, then the doctor arrived at my bed-side. Young chap and he had obviously been outside for a smoke because he reeked of tobacco. I couldn't resist giving him a stern lecture on what smoking will do to his health and how he should for his own benefit, and that of his family, stop. Revenge was so sweet but I have felt guilty about it ever since.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    MikeL said:

    Whatever you think about Trident it's completely bizarre to decide it's future based on jobs.

    Suppose we spent £5 billion per year employing people to count lamp-posts (or some other pointless activity).

    Would we say we must carry on counting lamp-posts because if we don't it'll cost jobs?

    The answer is that if an activity has no purpose it should be stopped and resources redirected to something which does have a purpose.

    Now I personally think Trident is worthwhile - but that is a separate issue.

    Well, one minor example is the production of nuclear subs. Last time we stopped building subs for a while, BAe ended up having to get Electric Boat from The US to teach them how to weld pressure hulls again.

    Building the four Trident replacement subs will keep the skill base rolling until the next order of attack subs. Which means that several billion of the price of Trident replacement would, in effect, have to be spent anyway.

    Unless you want to by all future subs from Germany or something.
    Naval engineers trained to operate reactors also have skills transferable and welcomed by the power industry.
  • Options
    Speedy said:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pentagon-2-u-s-navy-boats-held-iran-military-n495031

    "Iranian military forces seized two U.S. Navy boats Tuesday and are detaining them on Iran's Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf, senior U.S. officials told NBC News.

    The officials said it's unclear whether the 10 American sailors aboard two small riverine vessels had strayed into Iranian territorial waters before they were captured.

    The sailors — nine men and one woman — were on a training mission around noon ET when one of the boats may have experienced mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian-claimed waters, officials added. Iran's coast guard took them into custody."

    Farsi Island, a treasure island for satire.

    "This is not serious situation, this is a Farsi"

    The Farsi Awakens
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited January 2016
    @Cyclefree


    "Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors.'


    Did you see the 'older' doctor on Newsnight ?

    Apparently the strike is not about money or patient safety but about doctor's status.

    He also claimed there was research that sick people didn't want to see doctors on Saturday's!



  • Options
    GaiusGaius Posts: 227
    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    The american version of Corbynism?

    Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.

    Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.

    Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.


    Trump is going to be the next president.

    (Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).

    Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
    Expect this to change.

    Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.

  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    watford30 said:

    MikeL said:

    Whatever you think about Trident it's completely bizarre to decide it's future based on jobs.

    Suppose we spent £5 billion per year employing people to count lamp-posts (or some other pointless activity).

    Would we say we must carry on counting lamp-posts because if we don't it'll cost jobs?

    The answer is that if an activity has no purpose it should be stopped and resources redirected to something which does have a purpose.

    Now I personally think Trident is worthwhile - but that is a separate issue.

    Well, one minor example is the production of nuclear subs. Last time we stopped building subs for a while, BAe ended up having to get Electric Boat from The US to teach them how to weld pressure hulls again.

    Building the four Trident replacement subs will keep the skill base rolling until the next order of attack subs. Which means that several billion of the price of Trident replacement would, in effect, have to be spent anyway.

    Unless you want to by all future subs from Germany or something.
    Naval engineers trained to operate reactors also have skills transferable and welcomed by the power industry.
    They do indeed, but that has nothing to do with the ability to build submarines.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    john_zims said:

    @PClipp

    'The Labour Government under Jim Callaghan, was one of the best this country has known. The only policies they could implement - during the Lib-Lab pact - were Labour policies that were approved by the Liberals. Most of the time, they just governed quietly, without too much change.'



    You do spout some rubbish, were you actually around at that time or just trying to rewrite history?

    Massive inflation, endless strikes including the winter of discontent & Denis Healey forced to go to the IMF with a begging bowl.

    70's Labour governments were terrible. Bodies left unburied, rotting rubbish in the streets and power cuts. Hardly the stuff of dreams.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,728
    watford30 said:

    MikeL said:

    Whatever you think about Trident it's completely bizarre to decide it's future based on jobs.

    Suppose we spent £5 billion per year employing people to count lamp-posts (or some other pointless activity).

    Would we say we must carry on counting lamp-posts because if we don't it'll cost jobs?

    The answer is that if an activity has no purpose it should be stopped and resources redirected to something which does have a purpose.

    Now I personally think Trident is worthwhile - but that is a separate issue.

    Well, one minor example is the production of nuclear subs. Last time we stopped building subs for a while, BAe ended up having to get Electric Boat from The US to teach them how to weld pressure hulls again.

    Building the four Trident replacement subs will keep the skill base rolling until the next order of attack subs. Which means that several billion of the price of Trident replacement would, in effect, have to be spent anyway.

    Unless you want to by all future subs from Germany or something.
    Naval engineers trained to operate reactors also have skills transferable and welcomed by the power industry.
    Yup - welding HY-80 steel (basically high grade stainless) inches thick... guess what that is also good for?

    As a counter example - the replacement/upgrade program for the Callenger tank was put off so many times that there is no longer a tank building capability in the UK. The next tank will either be a Leopard or an Abrahams.

    Mind you, I would go for Merkeva with the Trophy anti-missile system....
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited January 2016

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,210
    Gaius said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    The american version of Corbynism?

    Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.

    Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.

    Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.


    Trump is going to be the next president.

    (Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).

    Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
    Expect this to change.

    Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.

    Sanders hasn't gone after Trump either. Though I think Bloomberg would run anyway if that was the choice and would have a reasonable chance of winning
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
    47 excess deaths in 3 months is a faster rate than Stafford. Read the article.
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @foxinsoxuk


    Are you familiar with the research one of your colleagues mentioned on Newsnight that sick people don't want to see doctors on Saturdays ?
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Doc, glad to catch you as I wanted to say thank you for providing such a full answer to my question last night. I found your post extremely interesting and I hope others did to, it was republished on here around lunch time today.

    On the ambulance question, this is just another example of how public services are not keeping up with an expanding and aging population. Planning for new housing is completely divorced from the provision of ambulances, police, hospital places, fire and rescue let alone the more obvious roads, transport links and such like.

    Increasing the population whilst at the same time reducing the money available for essential public services can only have one outcome.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    john_zims said:

    @foxinsoxuk


    Are you familiar with the research one of your colleagues mentioned on Newsnight that sick people don't want to see doctors on Saturdays ?

    http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/access/pms-seven-day-gp-pilot-drastically-reduces-sunday-opening-amid-frequently-empty-appointments/20010023.fullarticle

    Henry Marsh is a very interesting fellow. Before becoming a distinguished Neurosurgeon he studied PPE at Oxford. His recent book is excellent, one of the best books about the pracice of medicine in recent times.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/0297869876/R243BPJ6FCKA6Q/ref=cm_cr_dp_aw_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Just watched Derren Brown manipulate 3 out of 4 people to seemingly push someone off the top of a building on his latest TV show.
  • Options

    john_zims said:

    @foxinsoxuk


    Are you familiar with the research one of your colleagues mentioned on Newsnight that sick people don't want to see doctors on Saturdays ?

    http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/access/pms-seven-day-gp-pilot-drastically-reduces-sunday-opening-amid-frequently-empty-appointments/20010023.fullarticle

    Henry Marsh is a very interesting fellow. Before becoming a distinguished Neurosurgeon he studied PPE at Oxford. His recent book is excellent, one of the best books about the pracice of medicine in recent times.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/0297869876/R243BPJ6FCKA6Q/ref=cm_cr_dp_aw_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1
    People don't necessarily know their GP is available on a Sunday. Plus the shift of out of hours care will require a bit of a cultural shift that takes time to eventuate.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Doc, glad to catch you as I wanted to say thank you for providing such a full answer to my question last night. I found your post extremely interesting and I hope others did to, it was republished on here around lunch time today.

    On the ambulance question, this is just another example of how public services are not keeping up with an expanding and aging population. Planning for new housing is completely divorced from the provision of ambulances, police, hospital places, fire and rescue let alone the more obvious roads, transport links and such like.

    Increasing the population whilst at the same time reducing the money available for essential public services can only have one outcome.
    I have had a busy day, shall look back at the thread. Getting a quart out of a pint pot is the fundamental problem. Spreading an overstretched workforce even thinner will not solve it.

  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited January 2016
    The Iranians are just making total d**ks of the US administration.

    The crap out of the WH and State Department that it was all an accident is just complete balls.

    The Istanbul bomber looks to be a Saudi. Maybe just to make them seem less deadly we should call IS the Rainbow Coalition due to their truly multi national nature.
  • Options
    PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    Talking of BMA, after Margaret Thatcher curbed the Roche valium testing scandal by insisting only generic versions of valium could be prescibed on the NHS, I remember the then chief of the BMA saying "unless it was in green and white capsules it wouldn't be the same for his little old girls". It has always been about the money.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    john_zims said:

    @foxinsoxuk


    Are you familiar with the research one of your colleagues mentioned on Newsnight that sick people don't want to see doctors on Saturdays ?

    http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/access/pms-seven-day-gp-pilot-drastically-reduces-sunday-opening-amid-frequently-empty-appointments/20010023.fullarticle

    Henry Marsh is a very interesting fellow. Before becoming a distinguished Neurosurgeon he studied PPE at Oxford. His recent book is excellent, one of the best books about the pracice of medicine in recent times.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/0297869876/R243BPJ6FCKA6Q/ref=cm_cr_dp_aw_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1
    People don't necessarily know their GP is available on a Sunday. Plus the shift of out of hours care will require a bit of a cultural shift that takes time to eventuate.
    The scheme was fairly well advertised, and not the only one to be cancelled or reduced due to poor uptake.

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,249
    john_zims said:

    @Cyclefree


    "Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors.'


    Did you see the 'older' doctor on Newsnight ?

    Apparently the strike is not about money or patient safety but about doctor's status.

    He also claimed there was research that sick people didn't want to see doctors on Saturday's!




    My first GP - who I kept using until the birth of my first child - was always open on Saturday morning. Very convenient for those of us who worked during the week.

    I find the references to the previous doctors' strike very poignant. My father's planned operation was postponed as a result of it and by the time he had it his cancer was far advanced. Today is the anniversary of his death. A good man and much missed, even after all this time.

    "All we leave behind us is love" - and happy memories.

    I still hate bloody January, though. Never mind all this "dry" January nonsense. The only way to get through it is to arrange as many lunches, drinks and other life enhancing events as possible.

  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
    So if you think Mid Staffs was bad what do you think the NHS will be like with the same number of staff and resources spread even more thinly over 7 days?

    Just remember Cameron and Hunt promised you a 7 day NHS but with no money to pay for the staff to run it.
  • Options
    watford30 said:

    john_zims said:

    @PClipp

    'The Labour Government under Jim Callaghan, was one of the best this country has known. The only policies they could implement - during the Lib-Lab pact - were Labour policies that were approved by the Liberals. Most of the time, they just governed quietly, without too much change.'



    You do spout some rubbish, were you actually around at that time or just trying to rewrite history?

    Massive inflation, endless strikes including the winter of discontent & Denis Healey forced to go to the IMF with a begging bowl.

    70's Labour governments were terrible. Bodies left unburied, rotting rubbish in the streets and power cuts. Hardly the stuff of dreams.
    How many 1970s power cuts were under Labour governments, and how many under Conservative?
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    PAW said:

    Talking of BMA, after Margaret Thatcher curbed the Roche valium testing scandal by insisting only generic versions of valium could be prescibed on the NHS, I remember the then chief of the BMA saying "unless it was in green and white capsules it wouldn't be the same for his little old girls". It has always been about the money.

    Just what has this to do with doctors strikes?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    New CBS poll confirms that Hillary is going down fast:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-hillary-clintons-lead-over-bernie-sanders-shrinks/

    Hillary 48 -4
    Sanders 41+9

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-donald-trump-holds-on-to-top-spot-nationally/
    Trump 36 +1
    Cruz 19 +3
    Rubio 12 +3
    Carson 6 -7
    Bush 6 +3
    Huckabee 4 +1
    Christie 3 0
    Fiorina 3 +2
    Kasich 2 -1
    Paul 1 -4

    If Sanders wins Iowa and N.H. he will probably surpass Hillary nationally with the momentum.

    Hillary's lead over Sanders is less than half of Trump over Cruz.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,087
    Speedy said:

    New CBS poll confirms that Hillary is going down fast:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-hillary-clintons-lead-over-bernie-sanders-shrinks/

    Hillary 48 -4
    Sanders 41+9

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-donald-trump-holds-on-to-top-spot-nationally/
    Trump 36 +1
    Cruz 19 +3
    Rubio 12 +3
    Carson 6 -7
    Bush 6 +3
    Huckabee 4 +1
    Christie 3 0
    Fiorina 3 +2
    Kasich 2 -1
    Paul 1 -4

    If Sanders wins Iowa and N.H. he will probably surpass Hillary nationally with the momentum.

    Hillary's lead over Sanders is less than half of Trump over Cruz.

    That'd be fun. Any chance it's just a final hurrah from people wanting to drag out the democratic nomination, which will then fizzle out?

    Night all
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @foxinsoxuk

    Very strange that none of the trial areas were in London where getting a GP appointment can take weeks in some areas and where A&E is most overloaded.

    Did you hear his comments that the doctors strike was not about money or patent safety but doctors status !

  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Clinton IS vulnerable. The question is, is there someone with suitable credibility to run and sink her.

  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited January 2016
    Chris_A said:

    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
    So if you think Mid Staffs was bad what do you think the NHS will be like with the same number of staff and resources spread even more thinly over 7 days?

    Just remember Cameron and Hunt promised you a 7 day NHS but with no money to pay for the staff to run it.
    Imagine the outpouring of grief and anger if Labour had won the GE in 2015. No ring fencing, or extra spending. The NHS would be on a permanent strike. Wouldn't it?

    And I wonder if a Labour government would have continued with its programme of privatising the health service.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    kle4 said:

    Speedy said:

    New CBS poll confirms that Hillary is going down fast:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-hillary-clintons-lead-over-bernie-sanders-shrinks/

    Hillary 48 -4
    Sanders 41+9

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-donald-trump-holds-on-to-top-spot-nationally/
    Trump 36 +1
    Cruz 19 +3
    Rubio 12 +3
    Carson 6 -7
    Bush 6 +3
    Huckabee 4 +1
    Christie 3 0
    Fiorina 3 +2
    Kasich 2 -1
    Paul 1 -4

    If Sanders wins Iowa and N.H. he will probably surpass Hillary nationally with the momentum.

    Hillary's lead over Sanders is less than half of Trump over Cruz.

    That'd be fun. Any chance it's just a final hurrah from people wanting to drag out the democratic nomination, which will then fizzle out?

    Night all
    Who knows, but Sanders has taken the lead in Iowa and is way ahead in N.H. , Nevada which is next in line but with scarce polling might make it 3 out of 3 for Sanders.

    Hillary reminds me a little of Romney, but even Romney managed to win 1 out of the 3 early states in 2012.
    Hillary will sweep the black belt states, but will that be enough?
    On Super Tuesday democrats vote in 12 states, 4 of them are favourable to Hillary, but the rest are not.

    Goodnight.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    john_zims said:

    @foxinsoxuk

    Very strange that none of the trial areas were in London where getting a GP appointment can take weeks in some areas and where A&E is most overloaded.

    Did you hear his comments that the doctors strike was not about money or patent safety but doctors status !

    I have heard Mr Marsh speak on this subject before, and it is covered in his book. I do not entirely agree with him. His point is that the government has long since ceased treating Doctors as professionals, and they are reciprocating as the same. I think this is the status that he means, the deprofessionalisation of medicine.

    Marsh is quite interested in the social anthropology of medicine. Not surprising really as his wife is a well known social anthropologist, and writer. I would recommend her book too.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watching-English-Hidden-Rules-Behaviour/dp/0340818867
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    Trump draws his votes - I think - fairly evenly from Democrats and Republicans. He appeals to the forgotten WWC voter, particularly in the rust belt. (Let's Make America Great Again is playing directly to a group that's been left behind.)

    Bloomberg would pull in the traditional business community, the Jews, the retirees, and those who think Hillary is ethically challenged. He would also have the biggest war chest in election: he'd get most of the traditional Republican donors, and could dip into his (genuine) fortune if need be.

  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Chris_A said:

    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
    So if you think Mid Staffs was bad what do you think the NHS will be like with the same number of staff and resources spread even more thinly over 7 days?

    Just remember Cameron and Hunt promised you a 7 day NHS but with no money to pay for the staff to run it.
    The Mid-Staffs scandal had sod all to do with a lack of staff or money. It had everything to do with staff not doing their basic jobs, not caring about their patients and a management focussed on things other than delivering medical services.

    When TSE is made dictator for life I am going to petition him to pass a law that makes all employees paid more than £50,000 a year personally liable for failures in their organisation or part of organisation. No more Victor Blanks wrecking their banks and walking off with a few million to a comfortable retirement and no more hospital directors allowing patients to be maltreated without said directors and everyone down the chain of command not feeling the hit.
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Y0kel said:

    Clinton IS vulnerable. The question is, is there someone with suitable credibility to run and sink her.

    According to the voters, from the present 2 alternatives the answer is Sanders.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    Tim_B said:

    Another unfortunate piece of timing for Hillary - the Benghazi movie '13 Hours' opens this week.

    Is that the one with Jennifer Lawrence plays a gun toting Hillary Clinton, and where she storms the embassy herself, killing terrorists and rescuing the hostages?
  • Options
    PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    Chris_A - the valium scandal was that Roche introduced incentives for prescribing valium by encouraging Doctors to put people on the drug for "research". The more people in the "trial" the more money the doctor received from Roche. The keenest doctors went on skiing holidays on Roche's tab. Even when it became a public scandal doctors continued to prescribe the drug. The government responded by preventing Roche from profiteering on the sales. The BMA moved heaven and earth to keep the scam going. The doctors really didn't care that they were destroying lives, and the BMA took the side of their wallets.
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Thanks for that. Hunt can spread all the lies he wants but like all his changes (and Lansley's before him) which are completely not evidence-based, uncalled for and under-resourced, they end in real patients losing their lives.
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    PAW said:

    Chris_A - the valium scandal was that Roche introduced incentives for prescribing valium by encouraging Doctors to put people on the drug for "research". The more people in the "trial" the more money the doctor received from Roche. The keenest doctors went on skiing holidays on Roche's tab. Even when it became a public scandal doctors continued to prescribe the drug. The government responded by preventing Roche from profiteering on the sales. The BMA moved heaven and earth to keep the scam going. The doctors really didn't care that they were destroying lives, and the BMA took the side of their wallets.

    What makes you think that pharmaceutical companies act any more ethically now?
  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP Iowa

    GOP
    Trump 28%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 13%
    Carson 8%
    Bush 6%

    Democratic
    Clinton 46%
    Sanders 40%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf

    Quinnipiac for Iowa is big too:

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314

    Sanders 49 +9
    Hillary 44 -7

    The wind is blowing in Sanders sail, average today 7.5 points up in Iowa.

    PPP Iowa General Election


    Clinton 41% Rubio 46%
    Clinton 42% Trump 42%
    Clinton 42% Cruz 45%
    Clinton 42% Carson 46%
    Clinton 40% Bush 43%

    Sanders 47% Bush 39%
    Sanders 44% Carson 40%
    Sanders 45% Cruz 42%
    Sanders 43% Rubio 42%
    Sanders 47% Trump 42%
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_11216.pdf
    Sanders is more electable than Hillary, fact.
    Trump must go easy on Hillary or pray for Bloomberg to run and split the DNC vote.
    Trump draws his votes - I think - fairly evenly from Democrats and Republicans. He appeals to the forgotten WWC voter, particularly in the rust belt. (Let's Make America Great Again is playing directly to a group that's been left behind.)

    Bloomberg would pull in the traditional business community, the Jews, the retirees, and those who think Hillary is ethically challenged. He would also have the biggest war chest in election: he'd get most of the traditional Republican donors, and could dip into his (genuine) fortune if need be.

    "traditional business community": N.Y Democrats
    "the Jews": N.Y Democrats
    "the retirees" : Florida Democrats
    "and those who think Hillary is ethically challenged" : Republicans in general, but they'll vote for their own guy.

    But what about policies, does he have any popular policies except banning Hamburgers and Soda drinks?
    Even Perot, who was more wealthy than Bloomberg and without the Wall Street baggage, had popular policies but didn't win in 1992.

    America still has a strong 2 party system.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    US sailors still in Iranian hands as Obama delivers his SOTU speech:
    https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/687062053526355968
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838



    People don't necessarily know their GP is available on a Sunday. Plus the shift of out of hours care will require a bit of a cultural shift that takes time to eventuate.

    The scheme was fairly well advertised, and not the only one to be cancelled or reduced due to poor uptake.

    Weekend availability of GPs may or may not be an optimal use of resources but I'm hugely sceptical about claims that the public don't want it. Why would someone not wish to see a GP as soon as possible if they needed to? Also, for many of us, it's significantly inconvenient to have to take time off work to see a doctor.

    I would take the idea that people don't want weekend service seriously if it could be shown that private patients felt the same way. Does Roman Abramovich not want his primary healthcare physician to be around on Sundays?

    As to schemes being well-advertised, how? People don't read leaflets. Was it advertised on TV?

    Imo 7-day opening would be a huge plus for end-users. People would love it, once they got used to it. It's one change to the NHS people would really notice.

    Whether it can be done with current resources - that seems equally implausible. It might be a bad use of the resources we do have. Possibly a very bad use. But I find it implausible that users wouldn't like it.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    john_zims said:

    @PClipp

    'The Labour Government under Jim Callaghan, was one of the best this country has known. The only policies they could implement - during the Lib-Lab pact - were Labour policies that were approved by the Liberals. Most of the time, they just governed quietly, without too much change.'



    You do spout some rubbish, were you actually around at that time or just trying to rewrite history?

    Massive inflation, endless strikes including the winter of discontent & Denis Healey forced to go to the IMF with a begging bowl.

    Point of order sir: didn't most of those things happen after the ending of the LibLab pact?
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    Chris_A said:

    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
    So if you think Mid Staffs was bad what do you think the NHS will be like with the same number of staff and resources spread even more thinly over 7 days?

    Just remember Cameron and Hunt promised you a 7 day NHS but with no money to pay for the staff to run it.
    The Mid-Staffs scandal had sod all to do with a lack of staff or money. It had everything to do with staff not doing their basic jobs, not caring about their patients and a management focussed on things other than delivering medical services.

    When TSE is made dictator for life I am going to petition him to pass a law that makes all employees paid more than £50,000 a year personally liable for failures in their organisation or part of organisation. No more Victor Blanks wrecking their banks and walking off with a few million to a comfortable retirement and no more hospital directors allowing patients to be maltreated without said directors and everyone down the chain of command not feeling the hit.
    Really? Suppose you've not read the Francis report?

    "The Trust’s financial recovery plan and the associated staff cuts – Savings in staff costs
    were being made in an organisation which was already identified as having serious
    problems in delivering a service of adequate quality, and complying with minimum
    standards. Yet no thought seems to have been given in any part of the system aware of
    the proposals to the potential impact on patient safety and quality. There is no evidence
    that any effective questioning of this nature was undertaken. No detailed scrutiny of the
    possible impact of such changes seems to have been conducted by the SHA."
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Chris_A said:

    PAW said:

    Chris_A - the valium scandal was that Roche introduced incentives for prescribing valium by encouraging Doctors to put people on the drug for "research". The more people in the "trial" the more money the doctor received from Roche. The keenest doctors went on skiing holidays on Roche's tab. Even when it became a public scandal doctors continued to prescribe the drug. The government responded by preventing Roche from profiteering on the sales. The BMA moved heaven and earth to keep the scam going. The doctors really didn't care that they were destroying lives, and the BMA took the side of their wallets.

    What makes you think that pharmaceutical companies act any more ethically now?
    I think they mostly do in the UK. Their behaviour in unethical promotions continues in other countries though. Just last year Britains biggest Pharma was done for unethical promotions in China.

    Rules are very strict now on such things in the UK. Hard to even get free pens and Post-it notes now!
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Chris_A said:

    PAW said:

    Chris_A - the valium scandal was that Roche introduced incentives for prescribing valium by encouraging Doctors to put people on the drug for "research". The more people in the "trial" the more money the doctor received from Roche. The keenest doctors went on skiing holidays on Roche's tab. Even when it became a public scandal doctors continued to prescribe the drug. The government responded by preventing Roche from profiteering on the sales. The BMA moved heaven and earth to keep the scam going. The doctors really didn't care that they were destroying lives, and the BMA took the side of their wallets.

    What makes you think that pharmaceutical companies act any more ethically now?
    I think the point of the anecdote was that physicians do not always act ethically.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    AndyJS said:

    Just watched Derren Brown manipulate 3 out of 4 people to seemingly push someone off the top of a building on his latest TV show.

    Was the person Nick Clegg?
  • Options
    GaiusGaius Posts: 227
    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    The american version of Corbynism?

    Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.

    Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.

    Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.


    Trump is going to be the next president.

    (Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).

    Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
    Expect this to change.

    Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.

    Sanders hasn't gone after Trump either. Though I think Bloomberg would run anyway if that was the choice and would have a reasonable chance of winning
    But Sanders didn't go after Hillary either.

    Quite frankly he simply doesn't seem to have it in him, just like Bush doesn't.

    I actually think that Sanders is a more difficult opponent for Trump than Clinton. Trump is clearly a "people" person, Clinton isn't and in any debate he would destroy her.

    Sanders on the other hand has the Corbyn factor within the dems that Clinton doesn't.

    Bloomberg WILL NOT run as an independent. He is well known and has moderate support in New York but not elsewhere. If he did run, he may easily cost Trump the presidency but wouldn't achieve enough to win it for himself. Why bother to only come second?

  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    Chris_A said:

    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
    So if you think Mid Staffs was bad what do you think the NHS will be like with the same number of staff and resources spread even more thinly over 7 days?

    Just remember Cameron and Hunt promised you a 7 day NHS but with no money to pay for the staff to run it.
    The Mid-Staffs scandal had sod all to do with a lack of staff or money. It had everything to do with staff not doing their basic jobs, not caring about their patients and a management focussed on things other than delivering medical services.

    When TSE is made dictator for life I am going to petition him to pass a law that makes all employees paid more than £50,000 a year personally liable for failures in their organisation or part of organisation. No more Victor Blanks wrecking their banks and walking off with a few million to a comfortable retirement and no more hospital directors allowing patients to be maltreated without said directors and everyone down the chain of command not feeling the hit.
    Want some more? You don't have to look very far

    p45 "Throughout the period with which this Inquiry is concerned, the Trust suffered financial
    challenges. These pressures were regarded both inside and outside the Trust to be nothing
    particularly remarkable compared with other similar organisations, and therefore they were
    never treated as a particular cause for concern. However, I have no doubt that the economies
    imposed by the Trust Board, year after year, had a profound effect on the organisation’s ability to deliver a safe and effective service."
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    Chris_A said:

    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    I am sure policemen are getting younger too!

    Mr Hunt is showing his dedication to reducing unnessecary cardiac deaths here:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
    So if you think Mid Staffs was bad what do you think the NHS will be like with the same number of staff and resources spread even more thinly over 7 days?

    Just remember Cameron and Hunt promised you a 7 day NHS but with no money to pay for the staff to run it.
    The Mid-Staffs scandal had sod all to do with a lack of staff or money. It had everything to do with staff not doing their basic jobs, not caring about their patients and a management focussed on things other than delivering medical services.

    or how about

    "There was an unacceptable delay in addressing the issue of shortage of skilled nursing staff.
    There can be little doubt that the reason for the slow progress in the review, and the slowness
    of the Board to inject the necessary funds and a sense of real urgency into the process, was
    the priority given to ensuring that the Trust books were in order for the FT application. The
    result was both to deprive the hospital of a proper level of nursing staff and provide a
    healthier picture of the situation of the financial health of the Trust than the true reality,
    healthy finances being material in the achievement of FT status. While the system as a whole
    appeared to pay lip service to the need not to compromise services and their quality, it is
    remarkable how little attention was paid to the potential impact of proposed savings on
    quality and safety."

    Suggest reading it might stop the spouting of nonsense.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    watford30 said:

    john_zims said:

    @PClipp

    'The Labour Government under Jim Callaghan, was one of the best this country has known. The only policies they could implement - during the Lib-Lab pact - were Labour policies that were approved by the Liberals. Most of the time, they just governed quietly, without too much change.'



    You do spout some rubbish, were you actually around at that time or just trying to rewrite history?

    Massive inflation, endless strikes including the winter of discontent & Denis Healey forced to go to the IMF with a begging bowl.

    70's Labour governments were terrible. Bodies left unburied, rotting rubbish in the streets and power cuts. Hardly the stuff of dreams.
    How many 1970s power cuts were under Labour governments, and how many under Conservative?
    Surely the great majority were during the miners' strike under the Heath Government.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited January 2016
    Chris_A said:

    Chris_A said:

    watford30 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Most of the junior doctors on TV look awfully young. Barely old enough to have gone to university never mind left it and actually become doctors. If one of them came near me I'd be worrying about them - whether they were wearing a vest, eating properly and so forth.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/more-heart-patients-die-as-hunt-gives-999-dispatchers-longer-to-send-ambulance-a3154171.html

    Not enough ambulances? Well slow down the response times for heart attacks. Simples! Though I am sure it must somehow be the BMAs fault. Or the EU.
    Hunt could never in a million years be as bad as Burnham and Labour. Remember Mid Staffs? Dying elderly people forced to drink water from flower vases. There's the benchmark for failing healthcare.
    So if you think Mid Staffs was bad what do you think the NHS will be like with the same number of staff and resources spread even more thinly over 7 days?

    Just remember Cameron and Hunt promised you a 7 day NHS but with no money to pay for the staff to run it.
    The Mid-Staffs scandal had sod all to do with a lack of staff or money. It had everything to do with staff not doing their basic jobs, not caring about their patients and a management focussed on things other than delivering medical services.

    or how about

    "There was an unacceptable delay in addressing the issue of shortage of skilled nursing staff.
    There can be little doubt that the reason for the slow progress in the review, and the slowness
    of the Board to inject the necessary funds and a sense of real urgency into the process, was
    the priority given to ensuring that the Trust books were in order for the FT application. The
    result was both to deprive the hospital of a proper level of nursing staff and provide a
    healthier picture of the situation of the financial health of the Trust than the true reality,
    healthy finances being material in the achievement of FT status. While the system as a whole
    appeared to pay lip service to the need not to compromise services and their quality, it is
    remarkable how little attention was paid to the potential impact of proposed savings on
    quality and safety."

    Suggest reading it might stop the spouting of nonsense.
    Yes, we know. As always during the Labour years, boxes were ticked, and it was all someone else's fault. Quite how any on this prevented nurses from filling water jugs, and attending to the needs and dignity of the dying elderly remains unanswered. You know, the basics of healthcare. Budgets don't blind people's sight of the obvious.

    Still, carry on spouting excuses for Staffs if it makes you feel better.
  • Options
    PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    Chris_A - Mid-Staffs isn't hard to understand. Put the water out of reach and you don't have to change a nappy later, I don't think it is anything more than that.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @Chris_A

    So you are saying that the management of Mid Staffs was crap and focussed on matters other than delivering patient care, and that the staff that they did have were uncaring and failed at their jobs to deliver basic care. Not sure there is a fag paper between us.
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    Chris_A said:

    PAW said:

    Chris_A - the valium scandal was that Roche introduced incentives for prescribing valium by encouraging Doctors to put people on the drug for "research". The more people in the "trial" the more money the doctor received from Roche. The keenest doctors went on skiing holidays on Roche's tab. Even when it became a public scandal doctors continued to prescribe the drug. The government responded by preventing Roche from profiteering on the sales. The BMA moved heaven and earth to keep the scam going. The doctors really didn't care that they were destroying lives, and the BMA took the side of their wallets.

    What makes you think that pharmaceutical companies act any more ethically now?
    I think they mostly do in the UK. Their behaviour in unethical promotions continues in other countries though. Just last year Britains biggest Pharma was done for unethical promotions in China.

    Rules are very strict now on such things in the UK. Hard to even get free pens and Post-it notes now!
    Reckitt Benckiser and marketing of Nurofen?
    Pfizer putting the frighteners on all and sundry regarding the use of generic pregabalin? Mr Justice Arnold was quite damning

    "Warner-Lambert and Pfizer called three factual witnesses in relation to infringement and threats. First, Paula Tully, Head of the Pfizer Group's Global Established Pharma business in the UK. She gave evidence about the market for pregabalin in the UK, about sales of Lyrica, about the steps taken by Pfizer to address Lyrica's loss of exclusivity and about the alleged threats made by Pfizer. I regret to say that Ms Tully was an unimpressive witness. She appeared more concerned to articulate Pfizer's corporate position than to answer the questions put to her. Furthermore, she had not taken adequate care over the preparation of her evidence. In particular, the cross-examination on the section of her second witness statement on the purchasing practices of Pfizer's pharmacy customers showed that it made no sense and Ms Tully was unable to explain it. It was evident that she had just adopted material prepared by others without understanding it. I was left wondering how much of the rest of her evidence was also prepared by others."

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2015/2548.html
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237

    @Chris_A

    So you are saying that the management of Mid Staffs was crap and focussed on matters other than delivering patient care, and that the staff that they did have were uncaring and failed at their jobs to deliver basic care. Not sure there is a fag paper between us.

    But to say that it was not due to resources is fanciful
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Chris_A


    'But to say that it was not due to resources is fanciful'


    So why didn't we have many more Mid Staffs or were they just covered up ?
  • Options
    PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?
  • Options
    Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    PAW said:

    It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?

    None whatsoever
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    john_zims said:

    @Chris_A


    'But to say that it was not due to resources is fanciful'


    So why didn't we have many more Mid Staffs or were they just covered up ?

    Blaming resources shifts responsibility for the failure away from the individuals and local organisation, and onto the overseeing body. Mid Staffs was a culture of failure.

    Quite why anyone working within the health service would wish to defend what happened there is a mystery.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,187
    PAW said:

    Chris_A - Mid-Staffs isn't hard to understand. Put the water out of reach and you don't have to change a nappy later, I don't think it is anything more than that.

    It's pretty difficult to understand on the level of basic humanity. One lazy sod of a nurse on the fast track to getting their arse slung out of nursing for life is just about credible. Squadrons of them, supported by management, just so boxes could get ticked? Not so much...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    PAW said:

    It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?

    No
  • Options
    PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    edited January 2016
    Though I have to say, when I visited someone in the Royal Bournemouth early in the morning, the ward girls actually changing nappies looked ill with fatigue...
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023
    PAW said:

    It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?

    File it under antibiotics for a cold; homeopathy and Nurofen.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    PAW said:

    It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?

    If it were true you'd expect there to be cases where the generic binder or capsule was better, surely. But as others are saying, surely it's bollocks.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Germany travel advice 'needs' to be updated after Cologne sex attacks, warns MP

    Official travel advice for British women visiting Germany needs updating to warn of the dangers they may face there following an outbreak of sex assaults and violence at New Year's Eve celebrations, a Conservative MP is urging."


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/634082/Germany-travel-advice-Cologne-sex-attacks-warns-MP
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,210
    edited January 2016
    Gaius said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    The american version of Corbynism?

    Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.

    Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.

    Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.


    Trump is going to be the next president.

    (Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).

    Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
    Expect this to change.

    Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.

    Sanders hasn't gone after Trump either. Though I think Bloomberg would run anyway if that was the choice and would have a reasonable chance of winning
    But Sanders didn't go after Hillary either.

    Quite frankly he simply doesn't seem to have it in him, just like Bush doesn't.

    I actually think that Sanders is a more difficult opponent for Trump than Clinton. Trump is clearly a "people" person, Clinton isn't and in any debate he would destroy her.

    Sanders on the other hand has the Corbyn factor within the dems that Clinton doesn't.

    Bloomberg WILL NOT run as an independent. He is well known and has moderate support in New York but not elsewhere. If he did run, he may easily cost Trump the presidency but wouldn't achieve enough to win it for himself. Why bother to only come second?

    He would have the best chance of any third party contendor in history against Trump and Sanders and could well win the coasts and much of the MidWest and Florida and Virginia. As a multibillionaire he could also easily afford it
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,014

    Off-topic: an interesting piece on the problems facing Saudi Arabia, and a prince-who-might-be-king who is looking towards some limited reforms:

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21685467-muhammad-bin-salman-gambles-intervention-abroad-and-radical-economic-change-home

    And an interview:
    http://www.economist.com/saudi_interview

    So it looks like they're doing a China: keep the political and social fabric in place, whilst overhauling the economy. Unfortunately for them, it's probably two decade too late.

    Very good article on the region's politics and power plays. Thanks.
  • Options
    GazGaz Posts: 45
    edited January 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    PAW said:

    It is often said that generic drugs don't match the performance of the original because of differences in the binder or formulation of the capsule. Is there any truth in any of these assertions?

    No
    File it along with the oik in PCWorld telling you the £75 hdmi cable will give you a better picture.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,210
    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gaius said:

    Sean_F said:

    So what lies behind the sudden swing to Sanders?

    The american version of Corbynism?

    Corbyn won because he was athentic and the other three didn't do anything.

    Hillary, unlike her husband is a shit politician and has been connected to numerous scandals.

    Sanders is benefitting from the devotion of the faithful just like Corbyn did.


    Trump is going to be the next president.

    (Expect Cruz to be the next VP or AG, I imagine this has already been worked out).

    Sanders is presently leading Trump in the polls
    Expect this to change.

    Trump hasn't gone after Sanders yet.

    Sanders hasn't gone after Trump either. Though I think Bloomberg would run anyway if that was the choice and would have a reasonable chance of winning
    But Sanders didn't go after Hillary either.

    Quite frankly he simply doesn't seem to have it in him, just like Bush doesn't.

    I actually think that Sanders is a more difficult opponent for Trump than Clinton. Trump is clearly a "people" person, Clinton isn't and in any debate he would destroy her.

    Sanders on the other hand has the Corbyn factor within the dems that Clinton doesn't.

    Bloomberg WILL NOT run as an independent. He is well known and has moderate support in New York but not elsewhere. If he did run, he may easily cost Trump the presidency but wouldn't achieve enough to win it for himself. Why bother to only come second?

    He would have the best chance of any third party contendor in history against Trump and Sanders and could well win the coasts and much of the MidWest and Florida and Virginia. As a multibillionaire he could also easily afford it
    On Bloomberg a 2012 PPP poll had him winning 10% overall v Obama and Romney, 9% of Democrats, 8% of Republicans and 13% of Independents. If the GOP candidate was to Romney's right and the Democrat candidate to Obama's left as a Trump v Sanders race would be he could clean up with Independent voters and may make further inroads into centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_0825.pdf
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Notorious child killer Black is dead...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35296135
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Anyone fancy a small bet on UKIP winning a constituency seat at the Welsh Assembly elections?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    RodCrosby said:

    Notorious child killer Black is dead...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35296135

    Did he die in Azkhaban?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,195
    AndyJS said:

    Anyone fancy a small bet on UKIP winning a constituency seat at the Welsh Assembly elections?

    Do you have a particular seat in mind?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Anyone fancy a small bet on UKIP winning a constituency seat at the Welsh Assembly elections?

    Do you have a particular seat in mind?
    No I don't. When you look at them individually it seems very unlikely. I just think they might come through the middle somewhere, probably in a seat no-one is thinking about including the party themselves.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    HYUFD said:



    Those conservatives will still happily vote for Trump against Hillary or Sanders, the ones who might vote for Bloomberg are relatively wealthy, fiscally conservative and relaxed about immigration, probably employing a few immigrants themselves

    FWIW, my OC Mother-in-law (solid GOP, backed Santorum last time round) is seriously considering voting for Hillary (or abstaining) in a Clinton vs Trump competition. This is despite the fact that she despises the Clintons. Anecdote, of course, but perhaps indicative on how people will actually vote in the ballot box when it's not a generic question (as it largely is at this stage)
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:



    Those conservatives will still happily vote for Trump against Hillary or Sanders, the ones who might vote for Bloomberg are relatively wealthy, fiscally conservative and relaxed about immigration, probably employing a few immigrants themselves

    FWIW, my OC Mother-in-law (solid GOP, backed Santorum last time round) is seriously considering voting for Hillary (or abstaining) in a Clinton vs Trump competition. This is despite the fact that she despises the Clintons. Anecdote, of course, but perhaps indicative on how people will actually vote in the ballot box when it's not a generic question (as it largely is at this stage)
    It'll be a fascinating choice, down to who you believe is the most mentally unbalanced and pathologically amoral candidate on the ballot in November.

    Since Trump only has B+ grades in those subjects, the choice seems clear...
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    AndyJS said:

    Just watched Derren Brown manipulate 3 out of 4 people to seemingly push someone off the top of a building on his latest TV show.

    It is worth bearing in mind that it is not 3 out of 4 people in the general population, but 3 out of 4 people from a selected-and-filtered sub-sample of gullible and suggestible people. If I had applied, I would have been selected out at the first stage because (I'm fairly sure that) I would have been oblivious to the standing-up-and-sitting-down whenever-the-ping-goes task.

This discussion has been closed.