Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
Erm, is that right? iirc the Jo Cox guy had spent countless hours online reading far right stuff.
Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
It doesn't take much for the tory mask to slip and the ugly authoritarian to be revealed. Regulate this, ban that, oversight the other...
@Jonathan my wife just bought a brand new iPhone13 expecting the camera to be amazing and commented that my old Huawei Android from 2018 (which I use very infrequently now) still has a much better camera - with AI - on it.
13 or 13 pro? The none pro models always seem to have worse cameras.
It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
Well, the US certainly has a lot more capability than they would ever admit to, but the noises do sound rather concerned.
Maybe they’re trying to politely tell China that if they try that again, the US will be watching for it and prepared to react.
That said, the suggestion is that this rocket could do several orbits before heading for the target with only a few minutes’ notice. I imagine that’s not easy to defend against, even with all systems armed and on alert.
Cold War II does seem a step closer with this revelation.
My guess is this is a deliberate leak to discourage the US from intervening in Taiwan
The existing US ABM systems couldn't stop a Chinese ballistic nuclear attack on the US mainland. Or a Russian one. They were not designed to. Attempts to fund such a system have been repeatedly blocked by politicians, over the years.
Stopping an N. Korean attack is possible and various parts of a system for that have been implemented.
The other country that is unlikely to be happy about this is Russia given there are clear historical and strategic reasons why China and Russia are rivals.
I'd agree with Charles that this might be a deliberate leak by the Chinese when it comes to Taiwan. However, given China's poor economic figures today, there is a balancing act for the CCP between retaking Taiwan and not having opposition due to a worsening economy.
Russia regards holding other countries at risk of nuclear destruction as a major symbol of being a super power.
Otherwise "Mexico with missiles" is just "Mexico"
The hard reaction to the US locating ABM systems in Europe was interesting. The real problem the Russians had was not a handful of missiles to stop an attack passing over Europe.
But that, due to the nature of missile ABM systems, they defend a a very long, narrow oval (aligned along the great circle route to the probable attacker). With a circle(ish) added on round the actual ABM launch site.
Which means that a US ABM site will, inevitably, protect a chunk of the country it is in against missile attack.
So fro example, if the Poles allowed a US ABM site, a chunk of Poland becomes somewhat immune to Russian nuclear missiles.
Which in turn the Russians see as diminishing their status, in Poland, from the Big Bad Nooklear Superpower to Angry Armed Guys over there.
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
I wonder sometimes whether we need GPs at all, or if we'd be better off with more specialist doctors and instead have primary healthcare nurses to do triage for the specialist services.
I've had some bad experiences with GPs when I've needed mental health help and I think I'd be better off going directly to a specialist service.
From what I hear this is often the case for a lot of health needs - physiotherapy has been an issue for a few people I know for example.
The idea of a "general" doctor is perhaps a holdover from an earlier time when there wasn't enough medical knowledge for specialist doctors to be the norm. Would we introduce GPs if we didn't already have them?
Lets debate this. In what way am I "adding to division"? 1. The policy does have the immunity clause 2. Because the policy will end up with people drowning 3. The policy is seen as essential for securing Tory votes.
It is what it is. The challenge for all parties is to stop fanning the flames, stop hardening people's souls to the other. We all agree that people coming over on dangerous boats is Bad. How does drowning some of them help? The narrative has become one of invasion, of hoardes, or terrorists.
How is a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach anything other than a punch to the stomach for anyone with basic human decency? How is the prospect of more drowned 3 year-olds suddenly a vote winner? What have we become?
Afaicr a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach was quite recently seen as an opportunity to attack Merkel by some people..
As I keep saying, this is the Draw The Line moment. Both sides have said and done things that upset the other. So no need for whataboutery. This is not about point scoring. This is about recognising that we are collectively in the gutter and need to collectively lift everyone out of it.
Politicians are not their politics. I didn't know David Amess or Jo Cox. I am instinctively less critical of one than the other, but very very few politicians sit there casting votes we disagree with trying explicitly to do harm. All try to do what is best for their country in the best way that they see fit.
America can't draw the line. It is lost. When Senator McCain campaigned against Senator Obama he had "supporters" hurling all kinds of invective out against Obama. He tried to stop it. Told them that whilst he disagrees on policy that his opponent is a patriot and a good man trying to do the best for the country.
We need to do the same here. Call out actions and policies and campaigns that damage us collectively. Don't assume that the people pushing them are evil.
To me this type of discourse tends to end up in a 'why won't those cnuts stop calling us decent people cnuts' dead end.
I suspect the current moral panic about abuse on social media will be forgotten in a couple of weeks, partly because the murder of Amiss seems to have little to do with social media even in the wilder imaginings of Islamophobes. I daresay that kind of pretzel logic is universal but it does seem prevalent in this country.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
Kids are already drowning today thanks to our not ending the evil people smuggling that is ongoing from people attempting to flee the French Republic.
The only way to stop kids from drowning is ensuring no kids are attempting to cross the Channel in dinghies. The way to do that is to do as Australia has done and deport to a third nation anyone who crosses the water in that way. If everyone who crosses the water that way knows they'll be instantly deported without seeing a court or UK soil then people will stop attempting to cross the water.
Then we can have a safe and humane asylum system that sees people brought into the UK safely via planes not dinghies.
I'm told a deal with Albania for an off-site centre is close to completion. All arrivals taken there immediately and then processed while waiting in Albania. They could be there for years. The government believes that this will result in a huge reduction of people trying to get to the UK in the first place. They're right. Greece has taken tough measures and are putting people back into Turkish territory, the number of migrants has become a trickle as they've given up knowing that 95/100 trips end up with them back in Turkey and the people traffickers don't exactly give refunds.
Good, I hope that's true. They will have to face down screams of outrage first though.
Faux outrage. Almost all of them would never host an asylum seeker in their homes. I wouldn't either, but then I'm not asking for our borders not to be secured.
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
eConsultations work - it means that people can be referred to the appropriate doctor if specialist knowledge exists in the surgery (ours has a Skin Specialist 1 day a week so it means my call back is usually when they are doing things).
Given that I've spent 30 years drumming into people that the best answer a consultant can give is "I don't know but I'll find out and get back to you" I find it strange that people prefer to put GPs on the spot without prior warning and still expect an immediate response.
If I was a GP today I would be incandescent at all that is being thrown at them. Not 12 months ago, Hancock was announcing on front page of Telegraph that a new directive would go out that ALL future first line consultations would initially be phone or ideally video phone.
Now they are being told they are doing far too many phone consultations etc etc.
Phone is clearly more efficient and iirc the NHS higher command has been trying to move GPs over for years. Until there are a lot more GPs I can't see how we can go back to 80% or whatever being in person waiting room visits.
Clearly, a practice that wont see anyone like that needs action or closing down or whatever, but generally there needs a balance.
Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
I would suggest you are misreading the mood of the nation
Quite likely. However, the actual terrorist threats seem to come from Islamists and the far right, and not from a bunch of pissed-up socially inadequate keyboard warriors abusing footballers for missing penalties or, indeed, Members of Parliament. We should prioritise the actual risks and not get too distracted by subsidiary annoyances.
Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
Erm, is that right? iirc the Jo Cox guy had spent countless hours online reading far right stuff.
@Jonathan my wife just bought a brand new iPhone13 expecting the camera to be amazing and commented that my old Huawei Android from 2018 (which I use very infrequently now) still has a much better camera - with AI - on it.
13 or 13 pro? The none pro models always seem to have worse cameras.
How many people on here have printed out a picture from their phone in the last 12 months.
It's usually optical zoom, the higher models will have a telephoto lens. I find them to be of varying utility.
Just to buck your trend a bit, I actually got photos from Greece printed! We have a really nice one of both of us on the beach that we're framing.
Excellent! I had my Nikon FE2 refurbished the other day and have 3/4 of a film in there waiting for me to finish it. Was thinking of buying a 28-70mm lens. And of course that will mean I have to print them out.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
There you are at it again: this government is evil because they are willing to accept a certain level of consequences as a result of their policy.
The best way to limit drowning is to make sure that no one wants to cross the Channel is an unseaworthy vessel.
That will save the greatest number of lives over time (equal to a policy of meeting them all in Calais with Rolls Royces and chauffeuring them on ferries - but that isn’t consistent with immigration policy)
Where did I say evil? I think the policy is desperate more than anything else. They have made all kinds of claims about managed immigration they have no means of delivering on. This is the latest desperate measure to show some kind of control.
The *policy* is the problem. "Accepting a certain level of consequences" - drowned people - is a policy "that will save the greatest number of lives" is the problem. Its deeply cynical designed to fan the flames of hate for all the people out there who see England as somehow under siege by jihadis and the like.
We need to rehumanise people. Saying drowned children is an acceptable consequence is not the way to do so. Why not stand up to the element of the public baying for this kind of policy and say "no"? Same for the Labour lot engaging "Tory scum" chants at their conference or organised "March against the Tories" events so your delegates have to be inside a ring of steel to stay safe. Its wrong.
Do you think no children are drowning at the moment?
Tolerating dinghies crossing the Channel is saying drowned children is acceptable. If you want to stop children drowning, you need to stop the dinghies. It isn't safe to cross the Channel in a dinghy.
Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
Is that really true for Cox? Not sure about online, but the culture of division, the idea of some MPs being traitors to Britain (I know the notorious headline about the Supreme Court was later). From what I have read, I can't conclude that the vilification of MPs not on your side of an argument had no influence on Cox's killer.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
I was outraged on Friday both at the wicked murder of Sir David Amess and somewhat less so that it was immediately attributed on here to Rayner's earlier vile rant. As the dust sadly settles I understand @MarqueeMark had every right to make that political point scoring opportunity, and this is why.
What Rayner's (the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, no less) ill thought out abuse, which has rightly come back to bite her, shows us is how unsophisticated the class warrior Labour Party remain. Still locked into a class war which died along with coal mining in the last century. Her comments were outrageous and she should be sanctioned for them. She brought politics into disrepute.
By contrast Priti Patel and Boris Johnson operate a very sophisticated programme of political scapegoating that appeals to our baser instincts. They have crafted a Rolls Royce version of Trump's border wall, or Peter Griffith's tag line from the 1964 Smethwick by election. We may question it's morality, nonetheless it is very clever politicking.
Oh its clever alright. We have managed to progress from "Illegal migrants Go Home" vans (which tbh is a valid argument) to "just drown them" comments on social media and now a policy designed to do that as an "acceptable consequence".
We have made this journey because of a well-conceived weaponising of foreigners who started off as coming here to simultaneously take our jobs AND benefits, then they became terrorists, now they are ready for drowning. With people out there literally demanding that happen.
As you say the ground elements of the Labour movement are less sophisticated (Raner doubly so). But I have heard the same tirade against foreigners in the red wall from LLLLLL Labour voters. As I have said before many people are at least prejudiced against the other even if they don't go further. Hard to call people out on it without doing Gordon Brown in Rochdale (he was right btw, she was).
Which is why it needs to be a concerted effort on both sides to remove the hate and vitriol from our politics.
"Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI NEW: Forcing GPs to do more face-to-face appointments is ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’, the head of the British Medical Association has said
Let me get this straight. Asking GPs to do the work they were doing before Covid struck is "harassment" and "discrimination"?
Yes. The poor dears might meet sick people.
Change is coming, but it’s going to be a few years yet. Last couple of years have seen increased cohorts into medical schools, to finally increase the flow of new doctors. Supply and demand. The bma has kept training low for far too long. I understand people are still scared of Covid, that’s natural. But doctors I think need to understand that while e-consult, and phone triage will work great for many patients, it won’t for all, and they need to care for all.
I concluded long ago that my GP was useless. This was after I went to see them about a hearing difficulty for my last in-person consultation and was told in a patronising but very insistent way that I needed to eat more fish. It turned out that the doctor thought I was someone else.
Eventually when the found out what I was there for I was immediately referred to a consultant at the hospital, who I eventually saw 6 months later and who told me that there was nothing wrong with me and I was wasting his time.
The e -consultations system now in place is useful, in that I needed a sick note for work and the doctor was very happy to comply after 5 minutes on the phone; they offered to sign me off for 'up to 2 months' without any examination.
I think as someone said the other day, if it is really serious go to A and E. I get the feeling that the GP system has mostly become a very expensive type of social services.
That's a surprising comment. In general I've found GPs to be thoughtful and analytical - have you felt that symptom, let's try this approach and talk again next week. The other day a GP rang me from home in the evening to say she'd been thinking about an issue that I'd raised and had a further idea that might be helpful. I was impressed - how many professionals in any field would do that? Clearly the standard will vary but it sounds as though you've been unlucky.
As others have said, phone and e-consultations are fine (indeed preferable, for those of us who the comfortable online) in many cases, and so long as they're just options that's good. My GPs make it clear that they can be visited if we want, but if it's something easily dealt with by a phone call or e-discussion, so much the better.
You are realising why people vote Tory and go to live in Surrey. If they can afford it. It's all perfectly charming.
I wonder what your experiences with your GP would be in a red wall seat.
Pretty much the same if you had one of the better GPs.
There doesn't appear to be much geographical variation in quality:
Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
Is that really true for Cox? Not sure about online, but the culture of division, the idea of some MPs being traitors to Britain (I know the notorious headline about the Supreme Court was later). From what I have read, I can't conclude that the vilification of MPs not on your side of an argument had no influence on Cox's killer.
Not relevant for Amess or Timms, I agree.
Not necessarily for Amess, if the perpetrator was radicalised online through social media channels then it's definitely a factor.
One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.
Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.
Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.
The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.
If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.
Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.
It's argued that H. sapiens ability to work together in reasonably large groups was a significant part of the reason for it's success vis-a-vis the Neanderthals, Denisovians etc.
Absolutely and 67 million people is a reasonably large group to be working with. Its possibly too large still.
Is 1450 million people in China too large for them?
Or is this driven by what happened to them in Scotland?
No, they are pro the Union.
Once Scotland leave and Ireland is reunited the independence train in Wales will start rolling, and Labour here too, will be left at the station.
I guess there's an important difference between Labour and Lafur? Drakeford seems pleasantly rational on the issue which may be the product of Plaid not being much of a threat at the moment? Though SLab were pretty anti SNP even before they were reduced to third party status (they're off the SNPbad scale now).
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
I was outraged on Friday both at the wicked murder of Sir David Amess and somewhat less so that it was immediately attributed on here to Rayner's earlier vile rant. As the dust sadly settles I understand @MarqueeMark had every right to make that political point scoring opportunity, and this is why.
What Rayner's (the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, no less) ill thought out abuse, which has rightly come back to bite her, shows us is how unsophisticated the class warrior Labour Party remain. Still locked into a class war which died along with coal mining in the last century. Her comments were outrageous and she should be sanctioned for them. She brought politics into disrepute.
By contrast Priti Patel and Boris Johnson operate a very sophisticated programme of political scapegoating that appeals to our baser instincts. They have crafted a Rolls Royce version of Trump's border wall, or Peter Griffith's tag line from the 1964 Smethwick by election. We may question it's morality, nonetheless it is very clever politicking.
Oh its clever alright. We have managed to progress from "Illegal migrants Go Home" vans (which tbh is a valid argument) to "just drown them" comments on social media and now a policy designed to do that as an "acceptable consequence".
We have made this journey because of a well-conceived weaponising of foreigners who started off as coming here to simultaneously take our jobs AND benefits, then they became terrorists, now they are ready for drowning. With people out there literally demanding that happen.
As you say the ground elements of the Labour movement are less sophisticated (Raner doubly so). But I have heard the same tirade against foreigners in the red wall from LLLLLL Labour voters. As I have said before many people are at least prejudiced against the other even if they don't go further. Hard to call people out on it without doing Gordon Brown in Rochdale (he was right btw, she was).
Which is why it needs to be a concerted effort on both sides to remove the hate and vitriol from our politics.
Drowning people is never acceptable.
People are drowning at the moment.
Why aren't you bothered that people are drowning at the moment?
How do you plan to stop the drownings that are currently happening?
It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
Not everyone has hypersonic technology…
AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.
By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.
In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
“I aim at the stars (but sometimes I hit London” - Dr W von Braun (allegedly)
Did he say that when he was working for the Germans or the Americans?
You too may be a big hero, Once you've learned to count backwards to zero. "In German oder English I know how to count down, Und I'm learning Chinese!" says Wernher von Braun.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
Related to this - I see @gealbhan has been banned. I hope that's just for a few days. He/she completely lost the plot on Friday, but it was upsetting for many of us. I normally enjoy gealbhan's posts.
I am depressed this morning that my post which was just a compliment to @Philip_Thompson for what I thought was a well observed point by him and bearing in mind my previous posts over the last few days and in the past over the confrontational nature of our politics and how I would like to see that changed has resulted in replies ironically along the lines of political confrontation again eg its them not us, etc.
I suspect as usual nothing will be learnt. I would like to see our adversarial form of politics changed, but that requires huge constitutional reforms so is very unlikely.
Really, really depressing and makes me want to stop posting. Really depressed by those replies to what I thought was a pretty bland post by me.
"Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI NEW: Forcing GPs to do more face-to-face appointments is ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’, the head of the British Medical Association has said
Let me get this straight. Asking GPs to do the work they were doing before Covid struck is "harassment" and "discrimination"?
Yes. The poor dears might meet sick people.
Change is coming, but it’s going to be a few years yet. Last couple of years have seen increased cohorts into medical schools, to finally increase the flow of new doctors. Supply and demand. The bma has kept training low for far too long. I understand people are still scared of Covid, that’s natural. But doctors I think need to understand that while e-consult, and phone triage will work great for many patients, it won’t for all, and they need to care for all.
I concluded long ago that my GP was useless. This was after I went to see them about a hearing difficulty for my last in-person consultation and was told in a patronising but very insistent way that I needed to eat more fish. It turned out that the doctor thought I was someone else.
Eventually when the found out what I was there for I was immediately referred to a consultant at the hospital, who I eventually saw 6 months later and who told me that there was nothing wrong with me and I was wasting his time.
The e -consultations system now in place is useful, in that I needed a sick note for work and the doctor was very happy to comply after 5 minutes on the phone; they offered to sign me off for 'up to 2 months' without any examination.
I think as someone said the other day, if it is really serious go to A and E. I get the feeling that the GP system has mostly become a very expensive type of social services.
That's a surprising comment. In general I've found GPs to be thoughtful and analytical - have you felt that symptom, let's try this approach and talk again next week. The other day a GP rang me from home in the evening to say she'd been thinking about an issue that I'd raised and had a further idea that might be helpful. I was impressed - how many professionals in any field would do that? Clearly the standard will vary but it sounds as though you've been unlucky.
As others have said, phone and e-consultations are fine (indeed preferable, for those of us who the comfortable online) in many cases, and so long as they're just options that's good. My GPs make it clear that they can be visited if we want, but if it's something easily dealt with by a phone call or e-discussion, so much the better.
You are realising why people vote Tory and go to live in Surrey. If they can afford it. It's all perfectly charming.
I wonder what your experiences with your GP would be in a red wall seat.
Pretty much the same if you had one of the better GPs.
There doesn't appear to be much geographical variation in quality:
Interesting. Perhaps it's Nick's status as an ex- and serving politician that prompted the call. Although eyeballing that map it does seem that there are more yellows as one goes North-West..
Lets debate this. In what way am I "adding to division"? 1. The policy does have the immunity clause 2. Because the policy will end up with people drowning 3. The policy is seen as essential for securing Tory votes.
It is what it is. The challenge for all parties is to stop fanning the flames, stop hardening people's souls to the other. We all agree that people coming over on dangerous boats is Bad. How does drowning some of them help? The narrative has become one of invasion, of hoardes, or terrorists.
How is a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach anything other than a punch to the stomach for anyone with basic human decency? How is the prospect of more drowned 3 year-olds suddenly a vote winner? What have we become?
Afaicr a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach was quite recently seen as an opportunity to attack Merkel by some people..
As I keep saying, this is the Draw The Line moment. Both sides have said and done things that upset the other. So no need for whataboutery. This is not about point scoring. This is about recognising that we are collectively in the gutter and need to collectively lift everyone out of it.
Politicians are not their politics. I didn't know David Amess or Jo Cox. I am instinctively less critical of one than the other, but very very few politicians sit there casting votes we disagree with trying explicitly to do harm. All try to do what is best for their country in the best way that they see fit.
America can't draw the line. It is lost. When Senator McCain campaigned against Senator Obama he had "supporters" hurling all kinds of invective out against Obama. He tried to stop it. Told them that whilst he disagrees on policy that his opponent is a patriot and a good man trying to do the best for the country.
We need to do the same here. Call out actions and policies and campaigns that damage us collectively. Don't assume that the people pushing them are evil.
To me this type of discourse tends to end up in a 'why won't those cnuts stop calling us decent people cnuts' dead end.
I suspect the current moral panic about abuse on social media will be forgotten in a couple of weeks, partly because the murder of Amiss seems to have little to do with social media even in the wilder imaginings of Islamophobes. I daresay that kind of pretzel logic is universal but it does seem prevalent in this country.
It has been reported this morning there is evidence that David Amess killer was viewing on line material so I would gentle suggest it is best to wait the police statements on this
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
I was outraged on Friday both at the wicked murder of Sir David Amess and somewhat less so that it was immediately attributed on here to Rayner's earlier vile rant. As the dust sadly settles I understand @MarqueeMark had every right to make that political point scoring opportunity, and this is why.
What Rayner's (the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, no less) ill thought out abuse, which has rightly come back to bite her, shows us is how unsophisticated the class warrior Labour Party remain. Still locked into a class war which died along with coal mining in the last century. Her comments were outrageous and she should be sanctioned for them. She brought politics into disrepute.
By contrast Priti Patel and Boris Johnson operate a very sophisticated programme of political scapegoating that appeals to our baser instincts. They have crafted a Rolls Royce version of Trump's border wall, or Peter Griffith's tag line from the 1964 Smethwick by election. We may question it's morality, nonetheless it is very clever politicking.
Oh its clever alright. We have managed to progress from "Illegal migrants Go Home" vans (which tbh is a valid argument) to "just drown them" comments on social media and now a policy designed to do that as an "acceptable consequence".
We have made this journey because of a well-conceived weaponising of foreigners who started off as coming here to simultaneously take our jobs AND benefits, then they became terrorists, now they are ready for drowning. With people out there literally demanding that happen.
As you say the ground elements of the Labour movement are less sophisticated (Raner doubly so). But I have heard the same tirade against foreigners in the red wall from LLLLLL Labour voters. As I have said before many people are at least prejudiced against the other even if they don't go further. Hard to call people out on it without doing Gordon Brown in Rochdale (he was right btw, she was).
Which is why it needs to be a concerted effort on both sides to remove the hate and vitriol from our politics.
Drowning people is never acceptable.
People are drowning at the moment.
Why aren't you bothered that people are drowning at the moment?
How do you plan to stop the drownings that are currently happening?
All I see from you is faux outrage.
If this was 2006 and Labour were implementing this identical policy they'd be classed by these same posters as "tough but necessary".
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
I wonder sometimes whether we need GPs at all, or if we'd be better off with more specialist doctors and instead have primary healthcare nurses to do triage for the specialist services.
I've had some bad experiences with GPs when I've needed mental health help and I think I'd be better off going directly to a specialist service.
From what I hear this is often the case for a lot of health needs - physiotherapy has been an issue for a few people I know for example.
The idea of a "general" doctor is perhaps a holdover from an earlier time when there wasn't enough medical knowledge for specialist doctors to be the norm. Would we introduce GPs if we didn't already have them?
That's an insightful question.
It's possible the model of general practice changes very radically over the next 10-20 years, and the introduction of AI could lead to far quicker and more accurate diagnoses, saving the NHS money.
However, it probably won't (at least, not much) because staff reductions are very sticky and emotive in the NHS, and if lives are prolonged (a good thing) then chronic condition management costs will increased with them and it will can-kick end-of-life challenges further down the road.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
There you are at it again: this government is evil because they are willing to accept a certain level of consequences as a result of their policy.
The best way to limit drowning is to make sure that no one wants to cross the Channel is an unseaworthy vessel.
That will save the greatest number of lives over time (equal to a policy of meeting them all in Calais with Rolls Royces and chauffeuring them on ferries - but that isn’t consistent with immigration policy)
Where did I say evil? I think the policy is desperate more than anything else. They have made all kinds of claims about managed immigration they have no means of delivering on. This is the latest desperate measure to show some kind of control.
The *policy* is the problem. "Accepting a certain level of consequences" - drowned people - is a policy "that will save the greatest number of lives" is the problem. Its deeply cynical designed to fan the flames of hate for all the people out there who see England as somehow under siege by jihadis and the like.
We need to rehumanise people. Saying drowned children is an acceptable consequence is not the way to do so. Why not stand up to the element of the public baying for this kind of policy and say "no"? Same for the Labour lot engaging "Tory scum" chants at their conference or organised "March against the Tories" events so your delegates have to be inside a ring of steel to stay safe. Its wrong.
It is harder for the Conservatives to tone down than it is for Labour, because Johnson's continued populist success rests on the (generally) low level scapegoating a series of groups or institutions.
Labour's task is easy "tone down your language it has consequences, you nasty fish wife". Starmer could do that today!
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
eConsultations work - it means that people can be referred to the appropriate doctor if specialist knowledge exists in the surgery (ours has a Skin Specialist 1 day a week so it means my call back is usually when they are doing things).
Given that I've spent 30 years drumming into people that the best answer a consultant can give is "I don't know but I'll find out and get back to you" I find it strange that people prefer to put GPs on the spot without prior warning and still expect an immediate response.
If I was a GP today I would be incandescent at all that is being thrown at them. Not 12 months ago, Hancock was announcing on front page of Telegraph that a new directive would go out that ALL future first line consultations would initially be phone or ideally video phone.
Now they are being told they are doing far too many phone consultations etc etc.
Phone is clearly more efficient and iirc the NHS higher command has been trying to move GPs over for years. Until there are a lot more GPs I can't see how we can go back to 80% or whatever being in person waiting room visits.
Clearly, a practice that wont see anyone like that needs action or closing down or whatever, but generally there needs a balance.
I attended a CCG meeting for work and my GP happened to be on, he said during 2020 they had done more consultations than in any previous year.
Speaking to some people with mental health conditions, a phone consultation can work well. The doctor doesn't have to prod and poke you after all, and it removes the anxiety about going into the surgery. Even for those with phone anxiety, the act of filling in a form and booking an appointment can make it easier, and in fact by doing the triage the surgery is effectively saying it's OK to talk to the doctor.
Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
Is that really true for Cox? Not sure about online, but the culture of division, the idea of some MPs being traitors to Britain (I know the notorious headline about the Supreme Court was later). From what I have read, I can't conclude that the vilification of MPs not on your side of an argument had no influence on Cox's killer.
Not relevant for Amess or Timms, I agree.
Mr Justice Wilkie said the murder [of Jo Cox] was carried out to advance a political cause of violent white supremacism, associated with Nazism. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38079594
One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.
Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.
Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.
The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.
If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.
Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.
It's argued that H. sapiens ability to work together in reasonably large groups was a significant part of the reason for it's success vis-a-vis the Neanderthals, Denisovians etc.
Absolutely and 67 million people is a reasonably large group to be working with. Its possibly too large still.
Is 1450 million people in China too large for them?
Yes.
There's a reason China lacks democracy and there's a reason that the average salary in Taiwan is considerably better than the average in China.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
How is talking about a “drown the kids policy”, in any way taking the heat out of the debate?
Kids are already drowning today thanks to our not ending the evil people smuggling that is ongoing from people attempting to flee the French Republic.
The only way to stop kids from drowning is ensuring no kids are attempting to cross the Channel in dinghies. The way to do that is to do as Australia has done and deport to a third nation anyone who crosses the water in that way. If everyone who crosses the water that way knows they'll be instantly deported without seeing a court or UK soil then people will stop attempting to cross the water.
Then we can have a safe and humane asylum system that sees people brought into the UK safely via planes not dinghies.
I'm told a deal with Albania for an off-site centre is close to completion. All arrivals taken there immediately and then processed while waiting in Albania. They could be there for years. The government believes that this will result in a huge reduction of people trying to get to the UK in the first place. They're right. Greece has taken tough measures and are putting people back into Turkish territory, the number of migrants has become a trickle as they've given up knowing that 95/100 trips end up with them back in Turkey and the people traffickers don't exactly give refunds.
Good, I hope that's true. They will have to face down screams of outrage first though.
Faux outrage. Almost all of them would never host an asylum seeker in their homes. I wouldn't either, but then I'm not asking for our borders not to be secured.
Yes. My LinkedIn feed will be full of that within 48 hours of any such announcement.
Or is this driven by what happened to them in Scotland?
No, they are pro the Union.
Once Scotland leave and Ireland is reunited the independence train in Wales will start rolling, and Labour here too, will be left at the station.
I guess there's an important difference between Labour and Lafur? Drakeford seems pleasantly rational on the issue which may be the product of Plaid not being much of a threat at the moment? Though SLab were pretty anti SNP even before they were reduced to third party status (they're off the SNPbad scale now).
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
There you are at it again: this government is evil because they are willing to accept a certain level of consequences as a result of their policy.
The best way to limit drowning is to make sure that no one wants to cross the Channel is an unseaworthy vessel.
That will save the greatest number of lives over time (equal to a policy of meeting them all in Calais with Rolls Royces and chauffeuring them on ferries - but that isn’t consistent with immigration policy)
Where did I say evil? I think the policy is desperate more than anything else. They have made all kinds of claims about managed immigration they have no means of delivering on. This is the latest desperate measure to show some kind of control.
The *policy* is the problem. "Accepting a certain level of consequences" - drowned people - is a policy "that will save the greatest number of lives" is the problem. Its deeply cynical designed to fan the flames of hate for all the people out there who see England as somehow under siege by jihadis and the like.
We need to rehumanise people. Saying drowned children is an acceptable consequence is not the way to do so. Why not stand up to the element of the public baying for this kind of policy and say "no"? Same for the Labour lot engaging "Tory scum" chants at their conference or organised "March against the Tories" events so your delegates have to be inside a ring of steel to stay safe. Its wrong.
Do you think no children are drowning at the moment?
Tolerating dinghies crossing the Channel is saying drowned children is acceptable. If you want to stop children drowning, you need to stop the dinghies. It isn't safe to cross the Channel in a dinghy.
Sure. We all agree that it isn't safe. But how have we concluded that the solution to drowning is to drown them ourselves? To discourage them from making the journey? Desperate people do desperate things - from their perspective how does drowned when the dinghy develops a leak differ from drowned because HMBF dragged them under?
We're back to needing a rational border policy. We have told people that Britain uniquely is under siege when in reality we have far fewer asylum seekers than all our big neighbours. So of course they are the enemy. Perhaps if we treat them like human beings we can fix this. Stop lying to people about "1st safe country" and accept they have every right to claim asylum here. And then spend the money on the systems and facilities to quickly screen and process them. Valid claim, welcome, treated humanely. Invalid claim, off you go.
Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?
Sounds like the opening to a bad joke, but it isn’t.
Anecdote alert…
Last week I was working with a consultancy in China, helping us with some aspects of our business. What was interesting was a barely concealed contempt for European (inc U.K.) technology. China is a ‘digital economy’ (unlike Europe) and that things ‘move so much more slowly in the West’. Chinese customers have ‘far greater expectations’ than Europeans.
Whether true or not, the attitude is clear. We in the west are at the wrong end of another industrial revolution.
We should be concerned.
Well, I far one have "far greater expectations" than the Chinese - expectations for freedom of thought, speech and religion, for democracy and a government I can throw out, for not being spied on night and day and only allowed to do normal things if I do them in the way approved by the government, for not being herded into camps and subjected to terror if I am in a despised minority, for not being subject to a politicised arbitrary judicial system etc, for not having a deadly disease inflicted on me because of deliberate lying by the government and so and so forth.
If that means that my phone is a bit slow and I can't get a robot to deliver some crap meal to me in 90 seconds flat, jeez, well I'll live with that. I want to live like a human being not like a robot in some totalitarian nightmare.
It came from a NORAD report. The Americans don’t seem too happy about it, and are all but admitting the Chinese can now directly target the USA beyond the capability of their defence systems.
Does this mean that their interceptors cannot work with hypersonic targets? If so they are a serious waste of money.
Not everyone has hypersonic technology…
AIUI, hypersonic missiles can re-enter too close to the target and/or unexpected places to allow the system to accurately track, identify, target and destroy.
By comparison if NKorea fires a missiles there are only a number of routes it can take & you have the whole of the pacific to react
The one thing re the Chinese launch that caught my eye the most but got the least attention on here anyway was that it missed its target by so much - I think it was two dozen miles.
In nuclear weapons technology, that is a pretty big miss. Sure they will enhance the accuracy but you wouldn't want to rely for a first strike on weapons that could miss their targets by so much.
Another factor in this is the Boeing X37B. This is a robotic spacecraft/flight vehicle operated by the US military, and can spend multiple years in orbit - the latest has been up since May last year. It is capable of significant orbital plane changes (the direction it orbits), making it hard to track. It is used for experiments at the moment, but the system could very easily become an offensive system. The only thing stopping it is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits nukes in space.
Or fun ideas like getting Elon to put 100 tons of tungsten rods in orbit.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
I was outraged on Friday both at the wicked murder of Sir David Amess and somewhat less so that it was immediately attributed on here to Rayner's earlier vile rant. As the dust sadly settles I understand @MarqueeMark had every right to make that political point scoring opportunity, and this is why.
What Rayner's (the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, no less) ill thought out abuse, which has rightly come back to bite her, shows us is how unsophisticated the class warrior Labour Party remain. Still locked into a class war which died along with coal mining in the last century. Her comments were outrageous and she should be sanctioned for them. She brought politics into disrepute.
By contrast Priti Patel and Boris Johnson operate a very sophisticated programme of political scapegoating that appeals to our baser instincts. They have crafted a Rolls Royce version of Trump's border wall, or Peter Griffith's tag line from the 1964 Smethwick by election. We may question it's morality, nonetheless it is very clever politicking.
Oh its clever alright. We have managed to progress from "Illegal migrants Go Home" vans (which tbh is a valid argument) to "just drown them" comments on social media and now a policy designed to do that as an "acceptable consequence".
We have made this journey because of a well-conceived weaponising of foreigners who started off as coming here to simultaneously take our jobs AND benefits, then they became terrorists, now they are ready for drowning. With people out there literally demanding that happen.
As you say the ground elements of the Labour movement are less sophisticated (Raner doubly so). But I have heard the same tirade against foreigners in the red wall from LLLLLL Labour voters. As I have said before many people are at least prejudiced against the other even if they don't go further. Hard to call people out on it without doing Gordon Brown in Rochdale (he was right btw, she was).
Which is why it needs to be a concerted effort on both sides to remove the hate and vitriol from our politics.
Drowning people is never acceptable.
People are drowning at the moment.
Why aren't you bothered that people are drowning at the moment?
How do you plan to stop the drownings that are currently happening?
All I see from you is faux outrage.
If this was 2006 and Labour were implementing this identical policy they'd be classed by these same posters as "tough but necessary".
If it was 2006 and such a thing was happening the Leader of the Opposition would be leading the moral outrage at such a shameful policy. That you are engaged in this whataboutery just serves further proof as to how broken our politics now is.
Do you want to help fix it or is the odd murdered MP and the rest receiving dead threats another of Charles' "acceptable consequences"?
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
Related to this - I see @gealbhan has been banned. I hope that's just for a few days. He/she completely lost the plot on Friday, but it was upsetting for many of us. I normally enjoy gealbhan's posts.
I am depressed this morning that my post which was just a compliment to @Philip_Thompson for what I thought was a well observed point by him and bearing in mind my previous posts over the last few days and in the past over the confrontational nature of our politics and how I would like to see that changed has resulted in replies ironically along the lines of political confrontation again eg its them not us, etc.
I suspect as usual nothing will be learnt. I would like to see our adversarial form of politics changed, but that requires huge constitutional reforms so is very unlikely.
Really, really depressing and makes me want to stop posting. Really depressed by those replies to what I thought was a pretty bland post by me.
Just seen I got 4 likes for the original post. Feeling less of a wimp now. I'm obviously just a soppy emotional fool this morning.
Lets debate this. In what way am I "adding to division"? 1. The policy does have the immunity clause 2. Because the policy will end up with people drowning 3. The policy is seen as essential for securing Tory votes.
It is what it is. The challenge for all parties is to stop fanning the flames, stop hardening people's souls to the other. We all agree that people coming over on dangerous boats is Bad. How does drowning some of them help? The narrative has become one of invasion, of hoardes, or terrorists.
How is a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach anything other than a punch to the stomach for anyone with basic human decency? How is the prospect of more drowned 3 year-olds suddenly a vote winner? What have we become?
Afaicr a 3 year old boy lying face down dead on a beach was quite recently seen as an opportunity to attack Merkel by some people..
As I keep saying, this is the Draw The Line moment. Both sides have said and done things that upset the other. So no need for whataboutery. This is not about point scoring. This is about recognising that we are collectively in the gutter and need to collectively lift everyone out of it.
Politicians are not their politics. I didn't know David Amess or Jo Cox. I am instinctively less critical of one than the other, but very very few politicians sit there casting votes we disagree with trying explicitly to do harm. All try to do what is best for their country in the best way that they see fit.
America can't draw the line. It is lost. When Senator McCain campaigned against Senator Obama he had "supporters" hurling all kinds of invective out against Obama. He tried to stop it. Told them that whilst he disagrees on policy that his opponent is a patriot and a good man trying to do the best for the country.
We need to do the same here. Call out actions and policies and campaigns that damage us collectively. Don't assume that the people pushing them are evil.
To me this type of discourse tends to end up in a 'why won't those cnuts stop calling us decent people cnuts' dead end.
I suspect the current moral panic about abuse on social media will be forgotten in a couple of weeks, partly because the murder of Amiss seems to have little to do with social media even in the wilder imaginings of Islamophobes. I daresay that kind of pretzel logic is universal but it does seem prevalent in this country.
It has been reported this morning there is evidence that David Amess killer was viewing on line material so I would gentle suggest it is best to wait the police statements on this
Yes but not personal abuse of Amess or any other MP. This is quite different from whether Islamists or the far right or anyone else uses the internet to host or access material.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
There you are at it again: this government is evil because they are willing to accept a certain level of consequences as a result of their policy.
The best way to limit drowning is to make sure that no one wants to cross the Channel is an unseaworthy vessel.
That will save the greatest number of lives over time (equal to a policy of meeting them all in Calais with Rolls Royces and chauffeuring them on ferries - but that isn’t consistent with immigration policy)
Where did I say evil? I think the policy is desperate more than anything else. They have made all kinds of claims about managed immigration they have no means of delivering on. This is the latest desperate measure to show some kind of control.
The *policy* is the problem. "Accepting a certain level of consequences" - drowned people - is a policy "that will save the greatest number of lives" is the problem. Its deeply cynical designed to fan the flames of hate for all the people out there who see England as somehow under siege by jihadis and the like.
We need to rehumanise people. Saying drowned children is an acceptable consequence is not the way to do so. Why not stand up to the element of the public baying for this kind of policy and say "no"? Same for the Labour lot engaging "Tory scum" chants at their conference or organised "March against the Tories" events so your delegates have to be inside a ring of steel to stay safe. Its wrong.
Do you think no children are drowning at the moment?
Tolerating dinghies crossing the Channel is saying drowned children is acceptable. If you want to stop children drowning, you need to stop the dinghies. It isn't safe to cross the Channel in a dinghy.
Sure. We all agree that it isn't safe. But how have we concluded that the solution to drowning is to drown them ourselves? To discourage them from making the journey? Desperate people do desperate things - from their perspective how does drowned when the dinghy develops a leak differ from drowned because HMBF dragged them under?
We're back to needing a rational border policy. We have told people that Britain uniquely is under siege when in reality we have far fewer asylum seekers than all our big neighbours. So of course they are the enemy. Perhaps if we treat them like human beings we can fix this. Stop lying to people about "1st safe country" and accept they have every right to claim asylum here. And then spend the money on the systems and facilities to quickly screen and process them. Valid claim, welcome, treated humanely. Invalid claim, off you go.
Discouraging them from making the journey is the only thing that will stop the drownings, the question is how you get there.
Drowning them ourselves is absolutely not the right solution. Deporting them can be.
Nobody in France is desperate. And if they are then France should deal with that.
Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?
Sounds like the opening to a bad joke, but it isn’t.
Anecdote alert…
Last week I was working with a consultancy in China, helping us with some aspects of our business. What was interesting was a barely concealed contempt for European (inc U.K.) technology. China is a ‘digital economy’ (unlike Europe) and that things ‘move so much more slowly in the West’. Chinese customers have ‘far greater expectations’ than Europeans.
Whether true or not, the attitude is clear. We in the west are at the wrong end of another industrial revolution.
We should be concerned.
Well, I far one have "far greater expectations" than the Chinese - expectations for freedom of thought, speech and religion, for democracy and a government I can throw out, for not being spied on night and day and only allowed to do normal things if I do them in the way approved by the government, for not being herded into camps and subjected to terror if I am in a despised minority, for not being subject to a politicised arbitrary judicial system etc, for not having a deadly disease inflicted on me because of deliberate lying by the government and so and so forth.
If that means that my phone is a bit slow and I can't get a robot to deliver some crap meal to me in 90 seconds flat, jeez, well I'll live with that. I want to live like a human being not like a robot in some totalitarian nightmare.
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
eConsultations work - it means that people can be referred to the appropriate doctor if specialist knowledge exists in the surgery (ours has a Skin Specialist 1 day a week so it means my call back is usually when they are doing things).
Given that I've spent 30 years drumming into people that the best answer a consultant can give is "I don't know but I'll find out and get back to you" I find it strange that people prefer to put GPs on the spot without prior warning and still expect an immediate response.
The problem is fairly simple even if the answers are unsatisfactory. We don't have enough GPs to meet the demands of everyone who wants to see one at a given time.
Options are:
Recruit more GPs - takes many years and means more tax rises or cuts elsewhere Reduce amount of time per patient fairly evenly or reduce amount of time per patient but base it on some form of pre-assessment to judge expected severity Implement a queueing system with everyone sharing the same physical space, including the infectious and vulnerable or implement a queueing system online or through the phone
Those wanting loads of time per patient and the ability for all to go direct to a GP surgery are being completely unrealistic. We can and should improve the phone/online queueing systems but we all have to accept GP services will be stretched for the next few years at least. Partly as a result of the pandemic and partly down to the government and society not investing enough.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
The genie is out of the bottle I’m afraid. The opposition and the govt have shared ownership of this. But it won’t change. I’m afraid it will get much worse. What changed since Jo Cox.
It could stop. If all the major political parties came together and agreed a compact - basic rules of decent behaviour. Then all of them could go after the bottom-feeders out there who value nobody other than themselves.
But you are right. The hard left in Labour are still ascendant, and the "Tory Vermin" line which Attlee so rightly condemned has stuck in popular culture - "never kissed a Tory" t-shirts and the like. And the populist right are literally the government. The basic decency of past Prime Ministers completely forgotten.
It's older than that.
In the 80s it was quite common for the hard left to express murderous hated towards Conservative politicians - saying that it was a shame that the Brighton Bombing didn't kill more. Norman Tebbit received letters celebrating what happened to his wife.
Certain hard left MPs (Who I won't name because of involving Mike with libel) were quite assiduous in attempting to blacken the name of Airey Neave, after he was murdered. They alleged he was involved in all kinds of weird, treasonous conspiracies, to try and make his murder less of a crime.
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
eConsultations work - it means that people can be referred to the appropriate doctor if specialist knowledge exists in the surgery (ours has a Skin Specialist 1 day a week so it means my call back is usually when they are doing things).
Given that I've spent 30 years drumming into people that the best answer a consultant can give is "I don't know but I'll find out and get back to you" I find it strange that people prefer to put GPs on the spot without prior warning and still expect an immediate response.
If I was a GP today I would be incandescent at all that is being thrown at them. Not 12 months ago, Hancock was announcing on front page of Telegraph that a new directive would go out that ALL future first line consultations would initially be phone or ideally video phone.
Now they are being told they are doing far too many phone consultations etc etc.
Phone is clearly more efficient and iirc the NHS higher command has been trying to move GPs over for years. Until there are a lot more GPs I can't see how we can go back to 80% or whatever being in person waiting room visits.
Clearly, a practice that wont see anyone like that needs action or closing down or whatever, but generally there needs a balance.
That’s how it works where I am, can generally get an appointment with a specialist quite quickly if required. Mostly private system though, so a lot more slack in the schedule. GPs still exist, generally referred to as ‘family doctors’ and working at local clinics rather than hospitals.
The issue with changing the NHS system, is the the GP is the ‘gatekeeper’ in charge of restricting access to the specialists. Changing that role, apart from being another massive NHS re-organisation, would require a lot more specialist doctors to be recruited.
Given the huge pressures on the NHS, surely it makes sense to try to tackle behaviour which adds, unnecessarily, to that pressure. Namely:
a) people visiting their GPs when it really isn't necessary. b) people attending A&E when it really isn't necessary.
These are both very difficult to solve, without risking turning people away when they actually do need to be seen. But if phone consultations with GPs can reduce some of the pressure on a), that's all to the good. Similarly on b), more efficient ways of rapidly diagnosing whether a visit to A&E justifies joining the queue would be useful. The problem is, of course, that as soon as somebody is mistakenly turned away, the press would have a field day.
One interesting difference between the USA and the EU is that despite America actually being a single country there doesn't seem to be the same inclination to stop States from competing against each other.
Texas is quite happy to go out of its way to attract investment away from California.
Whenever a company like Tesla or Amazon are looking to build a new base of operations then cities and states basically whore themselves in an auction to see who can be most attractive for it.
The USA views competition as a healthy thing, the EU does not. That is why the USA is and the EU is not successful.
If post-Brexit the EU start to view themselves in competition with the UK [as they did in the vaccines debacle] then that might make life better for both Europeans and Brits in the end.
Competition makes us become the best versions of ourselves.
It's argued that H. sapiens ability to work together in reasonably large groups was a significant part of the reason for it's success vis-a-vis the Neanderthals, Denisovians etc.
Absolutely and 67 million people is a reasonably large group to be working with. Its possibly too large still.
Is 1450 million people in China too large for them?
Yes.
There's a reason China lacks democracy and there's a reason that the average salary in Taiwan is considerably better than the average in China.
Is 333 million people in the US too large for them?
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
Related to this - I see @gealbhan has been banned. I hope that's just for a few days. He/she completely lost the plot on Friday, but it was upsetting for many of us. I normally enjoy gealbhan's posts.
I am depressed this morning that my post which was just a compliment to @Philip_Thompson for what I thought was a well observed point by him and bearing in mind my previous posts over the last few days and in the past over the confrontational nature of our politics and how I would like to see that changed has resulted in replies ironically along the lines of political confrontation again eg its them not us, etc.
I suspect as usual nothing will be learnt. I would like to see our adversarial form of politics changed, but that requires huge constitutional reforms so is very unlikely.
Really, really depressing and makes me want to stop posting. Really depressed by those replies to what I thought was a pretty bland post by me.
Just seen I got 4 likes for the original post. Feeling less of a wimp now. I'm obviously just a soppy emotional fool this morning.
Could be time to order some gin from Gorilla. You'll have it by elevenses.
"Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI NEW: Forcing GPs to do more face-to-face appointments is ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’, the head of the British Medical Association has said
Let me get this straight. Asking GPs to do the work they were doing before Covid struck is "harassment" and "discrimination"?
Yes. The poor dears might meet sick people.
Change is coming, but it’s going to be a few years yet. Last couple of years have seen increased cohorts into medical schools, to finally increase the flow of new doctors. Supply and demand. The bma has kept training low for far too long. I understand people are still scared of Covid, that’s natural. But doctors I think need to understand that while e-consult, and phone triage will work great for many patients, it won’t for all, and they need to care for all.
I concluded long ago that my GP was useless. This was after I went to see them about a hearing difficulty for my last in-person consultation and was told in a patronising but very insistent way that I needed to eat more fish. It turned out that the doctor thought I was someone else.
Eventually when the found out what I was there for I was immediately referred to a consultant at the hospital, who I eventually saw 6 months later and who told me that there was nothing wrong with me and I was wasting his time.
The e -consultations system now in place is useful, in that I needed a sick note for work and the doctor was very happy to comply after 5 minutes on the phone; they offered to sign me off for 'up to 2 months' without any examination.
I think as someone said the other day, if it is really serious go to A and E. I get the feeling that the GP system has mostly become a very expensive type of social services.
That's a surprising comment. In general I've found GPs to be thoughtful and analytical - have you felt that symptom, let's try this approach and talk again next week. The other day a GP rang me from home in the evening to say she'd been thinking about an issue that I'd raised and had a further idea that might be helpful. I was impressed - how many professionals in any field would do that? Clearly the standard will vary but it sounds as though you've been unlucky.
As others have said, phone and e-consultations are fine (indeed preferable, for those of us who the comfortable online) in many cases, and so long as they're just options that's good. My GPs make it clear that they can be visited if we want, but if it's something easily dealt with by a phone call or e-discussion, so much the better.
You are realising why people vote Tory and go to live in Surrey. If they can afford it. It's all perfectly charming.
I wonder what your experiences with your GP would be in a red wall seat.
Or London. It's more or less impossible to get a GP appointment here. We were talking to my brother in law and his wife over the weekend, both GPs in Leeds. Their account of the state of the NHS in their area (close to collapse, essentially, with patients mired in deep poverty and ill health and the state more or less withdrawn from any effort to help them) was intensely depressing.
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
eConsultations work - it means that people can be referred to the appropriate doctor if specialist knowledge exists in the surgery (ours has a Skin Specialist 1 day a week so it means my call back is usually when they are doing things).
Given that I've spent 30 years drumming into people that the best answer a consultant can give is "I don't know but I'll find out and get back to you" I find it strange that people prefer to put GPs on the spot without prior warning and still expect an immediate response.
If I was a GP today I would be incandescent at all that is being thrown at them. Not 12 months ago, Hancock was announcing on front page of Telegraph that a new directive would go out that ALL future first line consultations would initially be phone or ideally video phone.
Now they are being told they are doing far too many phone consultations etc etc.
Phone is clearly more efficient and iirc the NHS higher command has been trying to move GPs over for years. Until there are a lot more GPs I can't see how we can go back to 80% or whatever being in person waiting room visits.
Clearly, a practice that wont see anyone like that needs action or closing down or whatever, but generally there needs a balance.
There might be a difference in requirements for a GP's 'regulars' who can be dealt with by phone and the 'occasionals' who only seek medical help when they have serious problems and should be dealt with in person.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
One thing I just thought about with the killing of David Amess is a few years ago we would have guessed straight away that it might have been Islamic terror.
Whether its because of the lack of initial reports of the attacker saying "Allahu Akhbar" or for other reasons, that didn't enter the conversation until after the attacker was identified this time. Instead people talking about things like 'politicians being called scum' etc which while bad likely had absolutely no impact on this attack since it had entirely different motives.
I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing that it wasn't the first thought we went to. Whether its a sign of progress in combatting Islamic terror, or a sign of how bad things have gotten elsewhere?
A well observed post. I think most people here did not jump to any conclusions. A couple seemed hell bent on making a political issue out of it by the scum reference to which most across the political spectrum here rejected as inappropriate at that moment. Another linked to Islam.
The rest of us were just sad at the event with no prejudgement.
Difficult to know if things have got better or there are more threats.
I think one or two of us were also pointing out the discrepancies on the reactions depending on who was attacked and why. Nobody seemed to have an issue after Jo Cox's death of jumping into speculation and making political points, nor was there was much in the point of condemnation for doing so. Yet after this attack, it was suddenly deemed not the right thing to do. It would be nice to have the same standards applied to all events, not just pick n mix.
So lets do that. Both sides can nitpick the other side. So its drop hands and actually work together.
We need to de-radicalise politics. Draw the line with the he said she said shit. Bides have said bad. It must stop. We cannot call the opposition scum or traitors. We cannot brand judges enemies of the people. Calling a politician names is fine if it is based on their abilities as a politician. Calling them the enemy is not fine.
Sadly the humanity has been smashed out of too many people over the last decade. We have gone from shared horror at a dead Syrian toddler face down on a beach to justifying the "accidental" drowning of the same in the channel with an immigration bill that breaks national and international law. We have gone from shared acceptance on language to describe opposition MPs to the deputy leader of the opposition denouncing government MPs as scum to huge cheers.
Draw the line. Stop this. We have to be decent human beings so that the extremists and the racists and the lunatics no longer have anywhere to hide. It used to be the case that mainstream politicians condemned the extreme views that can bubble away under the surface of society. Now they fan those flames for votes. We are along the same road that America is on. Not too late for us to turn around back towards basic human decency.
And yet you couldn’t resist putting quote marks around “accidental”
Because they absolutely know the policy is going to drown kids. They are building immunity into it so that Border Force staff can't be prosecuted for carrying out the policy.
It is of course right that they should have this immunity. It is completely wrong that they should be put in the position. Its "accidental" because whilst the BF staff will not set out to deliberately drown people, the peopl writing the policy know it will happen accidentally.
Accidental by design drowning of children. And your party are doing it for votes. Stop being a politician and become a human being again and tell me as a person how the drowning of anyone can be justified.
This is precisely the bottom feeding politics that has to stop. The difference is that I can condemn both the drown the kids policy and the "Tory scum" rant. You apparently cannot.
There you are at it again: this government is evil because they are willing to accept a certain level of consequences as a result of their policy.
The best way to limit drowning is to make sure that no one wants to cross the Channel is an unseaworthy vessel.
That will save the greatest number of lives over time (equal to a policy of meeting them all in Calais with Rolls Royces and chauffeuring them on ferries - but that isn’t consistent with immigration policy)
Where did I say evil? I think the policy is desperate more than anything else. They have made all kinds of claims about managed immigration they have no means of delivering on. This is the latest desperate measure to show some kind of control.
The *policy* is the problem. "Accepting a certain level of consequences" - drowned people - is a policy "that will save the greatest number of lives" is the problem. Its deeply cynical designed to fan the flames of hate for all the people out there who see England as somehow under siege by jihadis and the like.
We need to rehumanise people. Saying drowned children is an acceptable consequence is not the way to do so. Why not stand up to the element of the public baying for this kind of policy and say "no"? Same for the Labour lot engaging "Tory scum" chants at their conference or organised "March against the Tories" events so your delegates have to be inside a ring of steel to stay safe. Its wrong.
Do you think no children are drowning at the moment?
Tolerating dinghies crossing the Channel is saying drowned children is acceptable. If you want to stop children drowning, you need to stop the dinghies. It isn't safe to cross the Channel in a dinghy.
Sure. We all agree that it isn't safe. But how have we concluded that the solution to drowning is to drown them ourselves? To discourage them from making the journey? Desperate people do desperate things - from their perspective how does drowned when the dinghy develops a leak differ from drowned because HMBF dragged them under?
We're back to needing a rational border policy. We have told people that Britain uniquely is under siege when in reality we have far fewer asylum seekers than all our big neighbours. So of course they are the enemy. Perhaps if we treat them like human beings we can fix this. Stop lying to people about "1st safe country" and accept they have every right to claim asylum here. And then spend the money on the systems and facilities to quickly screen and process them. Valid claim, welcome, treated humanely. Invalid claim, off you go.
Discouraging them from making the journey is the only thing that will stop the drownings, the question is how you get there.
Drowning them ourselves is absolutely not the right solution. Deporting them can be.
Nobody in France is desperate. And if they are then France should deal with that.
France is dealing with them. According to the UNHCR (https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html) we received 26,903 applications last year. France received 93,475. Of interest to the "deport them to Albania, the deal is nearly done" comments earlier is that Albania was the 2nd biggest source of asylum applications to the UK...
For years - well beyond this government - we have had an asylum system not fit for purpose. We don't have the resources to manage and process them and then instead of fixing it we let the Home Office cut the budget even more and then resort to publicity-seeking stupid like the current bill.
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
Online or phone consultations work for some conditions. Not all. Someone with asthma or the sorts of lung issues I have had really needs to be seen and heard by a doctor. The last two times I had asthma consultations with my GP I ended up being sent to hospital - because the issue was very much worse.
I have not had a routine asthma check up since Covid. This is not what A&E is for.
I appreciate your point about weirdos etc. But let me give another perspective. Sometimes in my work I have had weird or annoying employees come to talk to me about something and you fear that they're going to waste your time. But if you really listen you will very often find that underneath all the fluff there is something concerning that needs looking at. Funnelling those sorts of conversations into a tick-this-box form, however cleverly designed, does risk missing out on stuff. And that stuff may be important.
"Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI NEW: Forcing GPs to do more face-to-face appointments is ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’, the head of the British Medical Association has said
Let me get this straight. Asking GPs to do the work they were doing before Covid struck is "harassment" and "discrimination"?
Yes. The poor dears might meet sick people.
Change is coming, but it’s going to be a few years yet. Last couple of years have seen increased cohorts into medical schools, to finally increase the flow of new doctors. Supply and demand. The bma has kept training low for far too long. I understand people are still scared of Covid, that’s natural. But doctors I think need to understand that while e-consult, and phone triage will work great for many patients, it won’t for all, and they need to care for all.
I concluded long ago that my GP was useless. This was after I went to see them about a hearing difficulty for my last in-person consultation and was told in a patronising but very insistent way that I needed to eat more fish. It turned out that the doctor thought I was someone else.
Eventually when the found out what I was there for I was immediately referred to a consultant at the hospital, who I eventually saw 6 months later and who told me that there was nothing wrong with me and I was wasting his time.
The e -consultations system now in place is useful, in that I needed a sick note for work and the doctor was very happy to comply after 5 minutes on the phone; they offered to sign me off for 'up to 2 months' without any examination.
I think as someone said the other day, if it is really serious go to A and E. I get the feeling that the GP system has mostly become a very expensive type of social services.
That's a surprising comment. In general I've found GPs to be thoughtful and analytical - have you felt that symptom, let's try this approach and talk again next week. The other day a GP rang me from home in the evening to say she'd been thinking about an issue that I'd raised and had a further idea that might be helpful. I was impressed - how many professionals in any field would do that? Clearly the standard will vary but it sounds as though you've been unlucky.
As others have said, phone and e-consultations are fine (indeed preferable, for those of us who the comfortable online) in many cases, and so long as they're just options that's good. My GPs make it clear that they can be visited if we want, but if it's something easily dealt with by a phone call or e-discussion, so much the better.
You are realising why people vote Tory and go to live in Surrey. If they can afford it. It's all perfectly charming.
I wonder what your experiences with your GP would be in a red wall seat.
Or London. It's more or less impossible to get a GP appointment here. We were talking to my brother in law and his wife over the weekend, both GPs in Leeds. Their account of the state of the NHS in their area (close to collapse, essentially, with patients mired in deep poverty and ill health and the state more or less withdrawn from any effort to help them) was intensely depressing.
Anecdote: I went for a mole clinic check up in London. They said I had a minor pre-pre-cancerous spot and should have it checked out by a dermatologist. I wanted to go privately and outside London. Where I wanted to be, there was a four month wait to see someone privately, and one of the secretaries said that was because there is an 11-month wait on the NHS!! Saw a (private) dermatologist in London two days later.
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
Online or phone consultations work for some conditions. Not all. Someone with asthma or the sorts of lung issues I have had really needs to be seen and heard by a doctor. The last two times I had asthma consultations with my GP I ended up being sent to hospital - because the issue was very much worse.
I have not had a routine asthma check up since Covid. This is not what A&E is for.
I appreciate your point about weirdos etc. But let me give another perspective. Sometimes in my work I have had weird or annoying employees come to talk to me about something and you fear that they're going to waste your time. But if you really listen you will very often find that underneath all the fluff there is something concerning that needs looking at. Funnelling those sorts of conversations into a tick-this-box form, however cleverly designed, does risk missing out on stuff. And that stuff may be important.
Good diagnosis cannot just be done remotely.
Yes, that's fair - like many things in life: it's complicated.
The sensible thing to do is to keep a stock of your favourite wines, it doesn't need to be massive and then the delivery and additional cost is irrelevant.
I've tried variants of this strategy over the years - always leads to a disproportionate increase in the rate of consumption.
The trick is to store them in an annoying place. Preferably one that requires putting your coat on to retrieve.
Amidst the pearl-clutching about online abuse of MPs, we should remember this was not a factor in the murders of David Amess or Jo Cox or the attack on Stephen Timms.
Is that really true for Cox? Not sure about online, but the culture of division, the idea of some MPs being traitors to Britain (I know the notorious headline about the Supreme Court was later). From what I have read, I can't conclude that the vilification of MPs not on your side of an argument had no influence on Cox's killer.
Not relevant for Amess or Timms, I agree.
Not necessarily for Amess, if the perpetrator was radicalised online through social media channels then it's definitely a factor.
True. I think DecrepiterJohnL is taking quite a narrow view of the influence of online abuse (which is fine, but is perhaps leading to a degree of discussion at cross-purposes). No suggestion in those cases that an online abuser went on to do actual physical harm, but I don't think we can de-couple an atmosphere of online abuse being accepted and MPs being selected as targets for violence.
It seems to me, on the evidence I have seen so far, that Timms and Amess were targeted for the simple fact of bring MPs (for Amess, we may find out there were other reasons for him to be targeted specifically). Cox seems to have been targeted, at least in part, for her outlook and politics.
@Jonathan my wife just bought a brand new iPhone13 expecting the camera to be amazing and commented that my old Huawei Android from 2018 (which I use very infrequently now) still has a much better camera - with AI - on it.
13 or 13 pro? The none pro models always seem to have worse cameras.
How many people on here have printed out a picture from their phone in the last 12 months.
It's usually optical zoom, the higher models will have a telephoto lens. I find them to be of varying utility.
Just to buck your trend a bit, I actually got photos from Greece printed! We have a really nice one of both of us on the beach that we're framing.
Many GPs secretly prefer eConsultations because they compel their patients to properly articulate their symptoms and narrative on a form first, together with a photographic image, that they can comfortably assess and research in their own time from home. They lower their risk, save time, and don't have to deal with the tiresome hypochondriacs, timewasters or weirdos they normally would need to see - some of whom just want a chat.
Couple that with the BMA - which is one of the most effective trade unions there is - and I'm not surprised they're dragging their feet.
I wonder sometimes whether we need GPs at all, or if we'd be better off with more specialist doctors and instead have primary healthcare nurses to do triage for the specialist services.
I've had some bad experiences with GPs when I've needed mental health help and I think I'd be better off going directly to a specialist service.
From what I hear this is often the case for a lot of health needs - physiotherapy has been an issue for a few people I know for example.
The idea of a "general" doctor is perhaps a holdover from an earlier time when there wasn't enough medical knowledge for specialist doctors to be the norm. Would we introduce GPs if we didn't already have them?
I was having precisely this conversation over the weekend with my best friend who trained as a nurse and ended up as a university lecturer in health. We both remember the days when GPs were usually single-handed operating from a room in the house where they lived. Nowadays most operate out of purpose-build surgeries together with nurses and other ancillary staff. The pandemic has forced new ways of working which will likely continue. So the idea of the 'general' practitioner will have to change as well.
"Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI NEW: Forcing GPs to do more face-to-face appointments is ‘harassment’ and ‘discrimination’, the head of the British Medical Association has said
Let me get this straight. Asking GPs to do the work they were doing before Covid struck is "harassment" and "discrimination"?
Yes. The poor dears might meet sick people.
Change is coming, but it’s going to be a few years yet. Last couple of years have seen increased cohorts into medical schools, to finally increase the flow of new doctors. Supply and demand. The bma has kept training low for far too long. I understand people are still scared of Covid, that’s natural. But doctors I think need to understand that while e-consult, and phone triage will work great for many patients, it won’t for all, and they need to care for all.
I concluded long ago that my GP was useless. This was after I went to see them about a hearing difficulty for my last in-person consultation and was told in a patronising but very insistent way that I needed to eat more fish. It turned out that the doctor thought I was someone else.
Eventually when the found out what I was there for I was immediately referred to a consultant at the hospital, who I eventually saw 6 months later and who told me that there was nothing wrong with me and I was wasting his time.
The e -consultations system now in place is useful, in that I needed a sick note for work and the doctor was very happy to comply after 5 minutes on the phone; they offered to sign me off for 'up to 2 months' without any examination.
I think as someone said the other day, if it is really serious go to A and E. I get the feeling that the GP system has mostly become a very expensive type of social services.
That's a surprising comment. In general I've found GPs to be thoughtful and analytical - have you felt that symptom, let's try this approach and talk again next week. The other day a GP rang me from home in the evening to say she'd been thinking about an issue that I'd raised and had a further idea that might be helpful. I was impressed - how many professionals in any field would do that? Clearly the standard will vary but it sounds as though you've been unlucky.
As others have said, phone and e-consultations are fine (indeed preferable, for those of us who the comfortable online) in many cases, and so long as they're just options that's good. My GPs make it clear that they can be visited if we want, but if it's something easily dealt with by a phone call or e-discussion, so much the better.
You are realising why people vote Tory and go to live in Surrey. If they can afford it. It's all perfectly charming.
I wonder what your experiences with your GP would be in a red wall seat.
Anyone seen anything about the Chinese hypersonic missile?
Apart from what's online? No.
Aren't we lucky Boris has signed us up for war with China in order to sell billions of dollars' worth of American submarines to Australia? Our cut being schadenfreude at annoying the French but no actual cash in return for facing this exciting new threat. And we thought it was only Russian hypersonic missiles we needed to worry about.
Typical extremist failing to realise the purpose of a solid defence program is to prevent war in the first place. Not to need to fight it.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
You sould like the appeasers of the mid 30s.. peace our time and all that. Eventually you have to stand up to bullying even if its only in the fi form of woke.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/18/wales-launches-drive-to-keep-young-people-in-their-homeland
Or is this driven by what happened to them in Scotland?
Otherwise "Mexico with missiles" is just "Mexico"
The hard reaction to the US locating ABM systems in Europe was interesting. The real problem the Russians had was not a handful of missiles to stop an attack passing over Europe.
But that, due to the nature of missile ABM systems, they defend a a very long, narrow oval (aligned along the great circle route to the probable attacker). With a circle(ish) added on round the actual ABM launch site.
Which means that a US ABM site will, inevitably, protect a chunk of the country it is in against missile attack.
So fro example, if the Poles allowed a US ABM site, a chunk of Poland becomes somewhat immune to Russian nuclear missiles.
Which in turn the Russians see as diminishing their status, in Poland, from the Big Bad Nooklear Superpower to Angry Armed Guys over there.
I've had some bad experiences with GPs when I've needed mental health help and I think I'd be better off going directly to a specialist service.
From what I hear this is often the case for a lot of health needs - physiotherapy has been an issue for a few people I know for example.
The idea of a "general" doctor is perhaps a holdover from an earlier time when there wasn't enough medical knowledge for specialist doctors to be the norm. Would we introduce GPs if we didn't already have them?
I suspect the current moral panic about abuse on social media will be forgotten in a couple of weeks, partly because the murder of Amiss seems to have little to do with social media even in the wilder imaginings of Islamophobes. I daresay that kind of pretzel logic is universal but it does seem prevalent in this country.
Now they are being told they are doing far too many phone consultations etc etc.
Phone is clearly more efficient and iirc the NHS higher command has been trying to move GPs over for years. Until there are a lot more GPs I can't see how we can go back to 80% or whatever being in person waiting room visits.
Clearly, a practice that wont see anyone like that needs action or closing down or whatever, but generally there needs a balance.
Once Scotland leave and Ireland is reunited the independence train in Wales will start rolling, and Labour here too, will be left at the station.
Who last bought an actual paper photo album?
Tolerating dinghies crossing the Channel is saying drowned children is acceptable. If you want to stop children drowning, you need to stop the dinghies. It isn't safe to cross the Channel in a dinghy.
Not relevant for Amess or Timms, I agree.
However, a good government is and labour fail that by some distance no matter some of the success they had with covid
We have made this journey because of a well-conceived weaponising of foreigners who started off as coming here to simultaneously take our jobs AND benefits, then they became terrorists, now they are ready for drowning. With people out there literally demanding that happen.
As you say the ground elements of the Labour movement are less sophisticated (Raner doubly so). But I have heard the same tirade against foreigners in the red wall from LLLLLL Labour voters. As I have said before many people are at least prejudiced against the other even if they don't go further. Hard to call people out on it without doing Gordon Brown in Rochdale (he was right btw, she was).
Which is why it needs to be a concerted effort on both sides to remove the hate and vitriol from our politics.
There doesn't appear to be much geographical variation in quality:
https://www.cqc.org.uk/help-advice/help-choosing-care-services/map-service-ratings-across-england
People are drowning at the moment.
Why aren't you bothered that people are drowning at the moment?
How do you plan to stop the drownings that are currently happening?
All I see from you is faux outrage.
A pretty fair summary of the origin of the quote.
Also
https://www.antiwarsongs.org/confronta.php?id=3204&ver=26143&lang=en
You too may be a big hero,
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero.
"In German oder English I know how to count down,
Und I'm learning Chinese!" says Wernher von Braun.
I suspect as usual nothing will be learnt. I would like to see our adversarial form of politics changed, but that requires huge constitutional reforms so is very unlikely.
Really, really depressing and makes me want to stop posting. Really depressed by those replies to what I thought was a pretty bland post by me.
It's possible the model of general practice changes very radically over the next 10-20 years, and the introduction of AI could lead to far quicker and more accurate diagnoses, saving the NHS money.
However, it probably won't (at least, not much) because staff reductions are very sticky and emotive in the NHS, and if lives are prolonged (a good thing) then chronic condition management costs will increased with them and it will can-kick end-of-life challenges further down the road.
Labour's task is easy "tone down your language it has consequences, you nasty fish wife". Starmer could do that today!
Speaking to some people with mental health conditions, a phone consultation can work well. The doctor doesn't have to prod and poke you after all, and it removes the anxiety about going into the surgery. Even for those with phone anxiety, the act of filling in a form and booking an appointment can make it easier, and in fact by doing the triage the surgery is effectively saying it's OK to talk to the doctor.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38079594
There's a reason China lacks democracy and there's a reason that the average salary in Taiwan is considerably better than the average in China.
We're back to needing a rational border policy. We have told people that Britain uniquely is under siege when in reality we have far fewer asylum seekers than all our big neighbours. So of course they are the enemy. Perhaps if we treat them like human beings we can fix this. Stop lying to people about "1st safe country" and accept they have every right to claim asylum here. And then spend the money on the systems and facilities to quickly screen and process them. Valid claim, welcome, treated humanely. Invalid claim, off you go.
If that means that my phone is a bit slow and I can't get a robot to deliver some crap meal to me in 90 seconds flat, jeez, well I'll live with that. I want to live like a human being not like a robot in some totalitarian nightmare.
Do you want to help fix it or is the odd murdered MP and the rest receiving dead threats another of Charles' "acceptable consequences"?
Drowning them ourselves is absolutely not the right solution. Deporting them can be.
Nobody in France is desperate. And if they are then France should deal with that.
Options are:
Recruit more GPs - takes many years and means more tax rises or cuts elsewhere
Reduce amount of time per patient fairly evenly or reduce amount of time per patient but base it on some form of pre-assessment to judge expected severity
Implement a queueing system with everyone sharing the same physical space, including the infectious and vulnerable or implement a queueing system online or through the phone
Those wanting loads of time per patient and the ability for all to go direct to a GP surgery are being completely unrealistic. We can and should improve the phone/online queueing systems but we all have to accept GP services will be stretched for the next few years at least. Partly as a result of the pandemic and partly down to the government and society not investing enough.
New Thread
In the 80s it was quite common for the hard left to express murderous hated towards Conservative politicians - saying that it was a shame that the Brighton Bombing didn't kill more. Norman Tebbit received letters celebrating what happened to his wife.
Certain hard left MPs (Who I won't name because of involving Mike with libel) were quite assiduous in attempting to blacken the name of Airey Neave, after he was murdered. They alleged he was involved in all kinds of weird, treasonous conspiracies, to try and make his murder less of a crime.
The issue with changing the NHS system, is the the GP is the ‘gatekeeper’ in charge of restricting access to the specialists. Changing that role, apart from being another massive NHS re-organisation, would require a lot more specialist doctors to be recruited.
a) people visiting their GPs when it really isn't necessary.
b) people attending A&E when it really isn't necessary.
These are both very difficult to solve, without risking turning people away when they actually do need to be seen. But if phone consultations with GPs can reduce some of the pressure on a), that's all to the good. Similarly on b), more efficient ways of rapidly diagnosing whether a visit to A&E justifies joining the queue would be useful. The problem is, of course, that as soon as somebody is mistakenly turned away, the press would have a field day.
For years - well beyond this government - we have had an asylum system not fit for purpose. We don't have the resources to manage and process them and then instead of fixing it we let the Home Office cut the budget even more and then resort to publicity-seeking stupid like the current bill.
I have not had a routine asthma check up since Covid. This is not what A&E is for.
I appreciate your point about weirdos etc. But let me give another perspective. Sometimes in my work I have had weird or annoying employees come to talk to me about something and you fear that they're going to waste your time. But if you really listen you will very often find that underneath all the fluff there is something concerning that needs looking at. Funnelling those sorts of conversations into a tick-this-box form, however cleverly designed, does risk missing out on stuff. And that stuff may be important.
Good diagnosis cannot just be done remotely.
It seems to me, on the evidence I have seen so far, that Timms and Amess were targeted for the simple fact of bring MPs (for Amess, we may find out there were other reasons for him to be targeted specifically). Cox seems to have been targeted, at least in part, for her outlook and politics.
form of woke.