Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

DD4 - your original post re mark foster implied pretty clearly that you were qutoing € 4,000,000 for a single year (2013) and NOT for his lifetime earnings ..... € 400,000 average pa is ok but can scarcely be called excessive, and though he may not be exactly top flight, he has certainly shown great consistency (after a strong amateur career i believe) for about the last 10 years ..... not many professional golfers last that long

gf

Where have the government laid off nurses?

Okay cynic, if that is the spin you want to put on what I posted then that is fine. "European Tour earnings" - I suppose that could be misconstrued to those who don't know much about golf - and I don't agree with your comment that not many professional golfers last for about 10 years. There is a reasonably lucrative Seniors Tour now for the players who are too old to compete on the regular Tour. Professional golfers live a priviledged existence, whether they are touring pros or club pros. Some club pros charge silly amounts of money for teaching, £10 to £30 quid for a half- hour lesson - hardly out of nappies some of them and they think they know everything about the theory of a golf swing.

Exec.

At our ages the best use for aspirin is to take it the day before the MI etc,

-----

The GP's contract change to out of hour responsibilities some years ago was a disaster.

The con artists in charge (coalition) have had 3 years to change the contract. (Wars were won in less time.)

======

My feeling about work overload of Medical doctors in this country, is that they should pull their fingers out, work a full day, start on time, organise themselves and sort out problems as they come through the door and in general practice take responsibility for those on their "lists".

That doesn't mean that they cover themselves for out of hours "problems" or open "evening services", but the responsibilities to a "reasonable" degree should have remained with them.

They should also learn to say "NO" to some requests made of them, and stop signing "forms" which they disagree with. Also to question why the "problem patients" are "problem patients" and modify their approaches and treatment patterns.

=================

Hays you are writing b---- again, engage your brain, sometimes you appear to have one.

Fred
The doctors refuse to change their contracts as they know they conned such a good deal out of the previous Labour government.

DD4 - no spin from my side, and out of curiosity, how much do you think the average club pro makes a year? ...... are you aware, that any teaching pro needs to take proper PGA courses on same, and frankly, if he doesn't teach well, then he wont get many clients either

how much do you charge your own time out at?
bet it's a lot more than £60.00 ph!

fred - i've prob picked up a fag end, but i think you'll find doctors are obligated to fill out an awful lot of rather pointless forms etc .... if they don't, they don't get paid

cynic, of course PGA pros need to get a PGA accreditation to teach. I played golf with a woman a few weeks ago who has been going to her local club pro for lessons for two years now, she plays off a handicap of 28 and she is never, ever, going to get any better because her grip is terrible and her posture is terrible. When I asked her what her pro was working on with her she started getting into a technical analysis about her backswing. You are obviously knowledgeable enough about golf to appreciate that if your grip and posture aint right you are fighting an uphill battle to play good golf. I don't know how much the average club pro makes in a year, but I'm sure if he has his head screwed on properly he can make a reasonable living - and it surely beats the hell out of standing in an overcrowded tube train going to work every morning. And no, I don't have a chip on my shoulder! :-)

Hays,

But Cameron can walk on water and miracles like describe were thought easy for him and his disciples.

Sorry, bulls .

=====

Cynic

Check.

There is quite a lot "private forms" signed for cash, which they don't groan about.

Also, the majority of GP practice have computerised systems and ancillary staff, etc.

The need to be more organised and responsive to what is "expected of them".

It probably means they should question was is "expected of them" and redefine their responsibilities and be paid accordingly.


========

I was talking to my GP the other day. He said that form filling has fallen dramatically since the extensive use of computers in surgeries. He can send letters of referral to hospitals with a few clicks. He updates patients' records as he is talks ng to them. He thinks it has more than doubled his productivity.

no i don't think you do have the king edwards, unlike several here :-)

as for standing on the underground, thank goodness i gave that up many many many moons ago .... indeed, when i worked in brick lane, most days i cycled there (and back!) from shepherds bush, as it was only about 10 minutes longer that way, and it was my excuse of rugby training!

cynic

I lived in Hammersmith and went to school in Shepherds bush

.

OK Hays they havent laid nurses off slip of the tounge, they havent replaced 5,000 through natural wastage.

In other words their are 5,000 fewer nurses NOW than when the Tories came to power.

gf
The government hasn't done anything to the nurses. It is the various NHS trusts to save money. They are letting nurses not be replaced rather than cut the layers of management.

And the con/dims have no control or influence over the hospital management?


lol, pull the other one.

Hays,

I do hope "the government hasn't done anything to the nurses".


---------

Cast Iron Dave is at it again.....



We're handing over more power to the EU – but the Government doesn't want you to know

The rush towards a criminal justice and policing 'opt-in' puts our national sovereignty at risk, writes Jacob Rees-Mogg.




By Jacob Rees-Mogg

1:30PM GMT 13 Nov 2013

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10446706/Were-handing-over-more-power-to-the-EU-but-the-Government-doesnt-want-you-to-know.html


One of the most important parts of the Lisbon Treaty was to change police and criminal justice measures from intergovernmental arrangements to a responsibility of the European Union. This removed the veto, brought in the European Parliament and allowed the Commission to bring enforcement actions via the Court of Justice. The United Kingdom was given a block opt-out to be applied before the deadline of December 1, 2014. This has now been exercised, removing the United Kingdom from 129 measures – and the Government is now deliberating on those which it wishes to rejoin.


The Government set out its position in July and in response to some pressure agreed to allow time for a number of House of Commons select committees to review its options. Last week the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired with great distinction by Bill Cash, produced its thorough report. It is an important work that was completed under a tight time frame much to the credit of the Chairman and the Clerks.


As a starting point, the report reviews the six broad categories that the 129 measures fall into. These are: measures intended to influence the criminal law; those affecting criminal procedures; mutual recognition of other member states’ decisions; police cooperation; EU agencies and international agreements between the European Union and third countries. It then explains how the opt-out works, the transitional arrangements and the ease of opting back in. It asks the key question of whether the UK would be able to establish equally effective alternative arrangements. Next, it assesses the Government’s reasons for wanting to opt back into 35 measures and examines the decision-making process. Finally, the report tries to establish the extent to which each decision is a matter of policy or principle.


The conclusion is troubling. The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, is critical of the process. The Government promised to inform Parliament of its intention in February but delayed until July. At that point there was much urgency which has hindered the efforts of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account. The claims made for the block opt-out and opt back in are exaggerated. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, says that the block opt-out is “first and foremost...about bringing powers home” and Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor, views it as “part of a process of bringing powers back to this country” yet many of the 94 measures that will be permanently opted out of are defunct or trivial while the 35 to be re-entered bring the full authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission and the European Parliament to bear.


This is a tangible transfer of power against an intangible return. As the report says: “Adherence to any legally binding EU police and criminal justice measure brings with it the risk of legal principles and practices of other jurisdictions influencing or interfering with our own, as the Court of Justice will have the ultimate say on how it is interpreted and applied.”

The decision-making process itself is a matter of concern as similar measures are almost randomly opted into. Two specific examples from the report are worth quoting. Why does the national interest require participation in a peer review of national capabilities to tackle organised crime but not terrorism? Why is it worth remaining in part of a network of contact points for exchanging information on the investigation of genocide but opting out of a related measure to investigate this crime? The terms “national interest” and “reputational risk” are used to justify opt-ins without any real explanation of their meaning or specific relevance. They are a catch-all for whatever the Government wants to do. Probably, as the Lord Chancellor said: “It is the nature of coalition governments that you have to reach collective agreements.” However, the Coalition agreement itself said that there would be no further transfer of power to Brussels and unless failing to exercise the block opt-out is deemed to be the status quo any opt-ins are a surrender of sovereignty.

Fortunately, there is still time before any irrevocable opt-in is confirmed. It will prove a real test of the Government’s mettle and of its leading figures’ dispositions. If they cede ground on this what prospect is there for renegotiation?

Jacob Rees-Mogg is the Conservative MP for North East Somerset

Hot off the press, Alwdgit went to school... It must be true because he said so.

Haystack - 14 Nov 2013 20:01 - 32835 of 32839

gf
The government hasn't done anything to the nurses. It is the various NHS trusts to save money. They are letting nurses not be replaced rather than cut the layers of management...............................ENDS

Hays whose running this country?????????, perhaphs youl say its still Labour lets face it your lot blame them for everything even though they are in their 4th year. I even remember one southern Tory blaming labour for the PASTY TAX........ my goodness.

Tories GET A GRIP.