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 - 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.

NHS trust have quite a high degree of autonomy concerning staffing and budgets. These trusts were introduced by the last Labour government. It was during the last government that the target culture dominated hospitals.

You're flapping in the wind H, the top down stuff could have been changed by now.

The trusts manage their own budgets. The government has asked the trusts to specify how many nurses it has on duty at any time due to low levels of cover.

Where do the trusts get their money from?

Roma community must be sensitive to British culture – Nick Clegg

Community's behaviour can be offensive, Nick Clegg says as David Blunkett tells government to recognise numbers here


Patrick Wintour, political editor


The Guardian, Thursday 14 November 2013 21.25 GMT

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/roma-community-sensitive-british-culture-nick-clegg


Nick Clegg warned the Roma community in Sheffield not to behave in an intimidatory way.


Nick Clegg has warned the Roma community in Sheffield not to be behave in an intimidatory way, as the former home secretary David Blunkett urged the government to do more to recognise the scale of the settled Roma community in the UK.

Earlier this week Blunkett said Roma groups from Slovakia settled in a district of Sheffield were behaving as if in a "downtrodden village or woodland".

Speaking on LBC the deputy prime minister said: "Of course I am acutely aware of the tensions. David Blunkett has been very outspoken about it and he has every reason to be concerned as the constituency MP. I am not sure, bluntly, if it helps very many people in Page Hall for him to then lurch around saying it is the government's fault."

Clegg, MP for Sheffield Hallam, added: "There is a real dilemma … when you get communities coming into a part of our country and then they behave in a way that people find quite difficult to accept.

"They behave in a way that people find sometimes intimidating, sometimes offensive. I think it is quite right that people should say. And on this, if not many other things, I actually agree with David Blunkett.

"We have every right to say if you are in Britain and you are coming to live in Britain and you are bringing up a family here, you have got to be sensitive to the way that life is lived in this country."

Blunkett, MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough, feels the government has not set out a strategy for this community, and has accused the Department of Communities of burying its head in the sand over the scale of Roma migration. A recent report by Salford University based on a local authority survey suggested there were nearly 197,000 settled Roma in the UK, when Blunkett said the government believed there were only 50,000.

Blunkett also insisted that he has never warned that the tensions in his Sheffield constiuency could lead to riots, although he did warn of a possible "explosion" between different communities in the city.

He said: "I was talking to a broadcast journalist as we walked through the community most affected in my constituency and referred to the fact that she had been working in Bradford and was familiar with the damage done to the community back in 2001, when tensions had led to divisions which then led outsiders to create havoc including the consequently disturbances."

The Salford study found local authorities appear to have little contact with most migrant Roma populations, suggesting a high level of self-sufficiency.

This was largely attributed to migrant Roma mainly from Slovakia "tending to be accommodated in private rented housing and not engaging, in any perceptible way, with local authority services or with key statutory partners".

Dave Brown at Migration Yorkshire said the lack of a full government strategy on Roma inclusion reduced local authorities' flexibility to use EU structural funds for Roma inclusion. But he denied there was a sudden new problem with the Roma community.

Blunkett had spoken out on BBC Radio Sheffield about the Roma groups from Slovakia who had settled in a district of the city. He added: "We've got to be tough and robust in saying to people you are not in a downtrodden village or woodland, because many of them don't even live in areas where there are toilets or refuse collection facilities.

"You are not there any more, you are here – and you've got to adhere to our standards, and to our way of behaving, and if you do then you'll get a welcome and people will support you."

He said in the summer there had been problems with Roma groups congregating on street corners. The conflict appears to have been greatest with the Pakistani community.

He added: "We have got to change the behaviour and the culture of the incoming Roma community, because there's going to be an explosion otherwise. We all know that."

When pressed about the likely impact of Bulgarians and Romanians coming to the UK at the turn of the year, Clegg refused to make any prediction, citing the failure of the previous Labour government to judge the impact of opening the doors to eight eastern European countries in 2004, which was earlier than required by the EU. The former Labour home secretary Jack Straw described the policy as a "spectacular mistake" this week.

Clegg said: "The lesson we've learned from the previous government is, don't make loads of predictions that turn out to be completely untrue, because that is what destroys or undermines public confidence even further."

But he defended the need for the country to remain open to immigration: "We are nothing as a nation if we don't stay open to the rest of the world."

He added: "I am a liberal. I think one of the great things about our country is that we are open-hearted and generous-minded. The NHS would keel over if it did not have people coming to this country to work for it. Of course we should welcome people that want to play by the rules, pay their taxes and contribute to public life."

He pointed out that there are lots of people that come to Britain and then invest and create jobs, and medical professionals who come to treat British patients.