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.

Ill write it Fred. It doesnt bother me and Im not taking any moral lessons from a women who as the morals of an ALLEY CAT.

Just in time to take over from Dave when he falls off his perch.



Boris Johnson could be parachuted into safe Hertfordshire seat

James Clappison, MP for Hertsmere who served as a minister in John Major’s Tory Government in the 1990s, said that he felt “now is the time to move on”.



By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent

5:12PM BST 03 Jul 2014



Boris Johnson could be parachuted into a safe seat in Hertfordshire after a veteran Conservative MP said he was standing down in May’s general election.


James Clappison, the respected MP for Hertsmere who served as a minister in John Major’s Tory Government in the 1990s, said that he felt “now is the time to move on”.


Mr Clappison, 57, entered Parliament in 1992 and held the seat in 2010 with a 17,600 majority.


Local Tories are understood to want to use Mr Clappison’s unexpected resignation to attract a high profile candidate to the seat, such as Mr Johnson, the London Mayor who has a soaring media profile.


Mr Johnson – a possible successor to David Cameron as Tory leader - is keeping his options open about returning to Parliament next year.


However, if he did so, he would have to combine being an MP with continuing as Mayor of London until his term expires in May 2016.



More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10944206/Boris-Johnson-could-be-parachuted-into-safe-Hertfordshire-seat.html

There are several posts per day on here, where the 'defamatory remarks situation' gets quite nasty, escalates and then also gets out of hand.

Since such posts are against MoneyAM’s T&Cs on Content Standards, it is about time, IMHO, someone from MoneyAM management fired a message to a few posters on here and gave warning on it, specifically telling them to cease their malicious, defamatory and harassing posts.

The Defamation Act came into force on 1 January 2014 and this also could be a good reason for doing this, if management did not want to single anyone out.

Although there is no single definition, there have been a number of arguments accepted by courts which suggest that a statement is defamatory if for example:

It is false
Is harmful to a person’s reputation
Decreases respect or confidence
Causes ridicule, hatred or contempt

In any event, this place is turning into somewhere which is not one of the nicest places on the Internet to be. As such it must surely drive away customers from the site and also devalue the business.

Camorons been found to be wrong then....................YET AGAIN.......

electionista @electionista ·
TNS poll - is an EU without Britain conceivable?

66% in Germany, 68% in France, say yes it is.

EL.

Have you led a sheltered life?

This board is one of the most civilised I have come across.

But at the end of the day, it's a BB, and full and frank exchanges of opinion are the order of the day....why would you want to change that?

What does conceivable mean gf?

And why does it matter?

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Max is this the poster EL......... ExecutiveLine???????????

Ive had him on filter after a unwarranted personal attack on me.

IMO hes one of the biggest perpetrators of breaking rules and conditions on the whole B/board.

Take him with a pinch of salts.

Try posting to IAN the administrator and pointing out someone is breaking the Boards Rules and conditions.

I tried about six month back(set up a thread) and got nowhere in the end I was so fed up of one multi poster I had to seek help from moneyams biggest backer and sent a copy to admin where I got an immediate reply from the big chief Bullshare (Mike) who sent me an apology and very freindly e-mail saying the offender would be dealt with.

Hes back though with at least 5 multi handles.

What people should realise on here is if they are prepared to dish it out they should be prepared to stomach a RETALIATION reply.

If they cant stomach that they should think twice before attacking other posters.

Max because Camoron is deluded in thinking other EEC members will be falling over themselves to try and keep Britain in the Union but quite clearly this from the statistics isnt the case. Their presidents have the majority of their people with them.

Duplicate.

It does appear that most of the leaders are very concerned that we may leave. Only yesterday Merkel offered Cameron help in stopping benefits for migrants.

Camoron At It Again Distorting Facts and Statistics On The NHS

This is the one taken offline but I cached it.

Second reading
The House of Commons Library blog
Navigation
Skip to content
Home
Have A&E waiting times fallen?
3 July
Yesterday at PMQs the Prime Minister stated:

When [Labour was in Government], the average waiting time [in A&E] was 77 minutes; under this Government, it is 30 minutes.

This claim has been made a number of times by Ministers in the House of Commons. But other reports indicate that that A&E performancehas declined, with the 4-hour target having been missed in England’s major departments every week since last July. So where does the PM’s claim come from, and is it correct? Here I’ll suggest that it relies on a simplistic reading of the data, and that the measure he refers to is not the most natural indicator of the “average waiting time” in A&E.

Means and Medians

The PM is referring to the mean “duration to initial assessment” in A&E – i.e. the time between when a patient arrives and when they are first assessed*. (This indicator is not available in the routinely published data, but can be viewed in these tables which were given in response to a parliamentary question). Here is a chart of the mean and median time to initial assessment from 2008 to 2012:

Initial assesments to A&E

Two things should jump out from this data: first, the large difference between the median and the mean waiting time; and second, the dramatic fall at the beginning of 2011-12.

Whenever there is a large difference between the median and the mean, this usually indicates that the mean is being distorted by some outlying values – in this case, some very long waits for initial assessment. In their publications on A&E waiting times, the Health and Social Care Information Centre warn that these extremes are “particularly sensitive to poor data quality and definitional issues”. This suggests that the mean value here is not a good indicator of time to initial assessment in A&E; so we should rely on the median value to tell us what the typical time to initial assessment in A&E is. But the median has remained more or less unchanged at around 10 minutes to initial assessment, which does not show the trend that the PM refers to.

What about the dramatic fall in the mean in April 2011? This corresponds with the time to initial assessment in A&E being designated as a “care quality indicator” and becoming subject to mandatory reporting (along with several other similar measures). So it’s plausible that the fall in the mean in April 2011 reflects an improvement in data collection, quality and reporting, rather than any genuine change in waiting times. It’s also worth noting that the 2012/13 data has over three times as many data points – “attendances with a valid duration to initial assessment” – than the 2008/09 data, and so is likely to be more reliable than this earlier data.

What is the ‘average waiting time’?

So the data on time to initial assessment does not support the PM’s statement. But there is a further problem here: the time to initial assessment is not a natural indicator of the typical waiting time in A&E. After all, the median time to initial assessment is only 10 minutes: patients will obviously still have to wait in A&E, often for a significant period, after their initial assessment is completed. If, after a trip to A&E, you were asked “How long did you have to wait?”, it is very unlikely that you would reply by reporting the time to your initial assessment. Instead, you’d probably respond by saying how long it took before you were treated, or perhaps giving the total time you spent in A&E.

Thankfully, these measures are both included in the published data on A&E quality. Here is a chart showing how these have changed between 2008 and 2013:

Waiting Times A&E

On these measures – which as we saw above, are more natural ways to report “average A&E waiting times” – there has been no reduction in waiting times. Time to treatment is static save for seasonal variation, and total time in A&E has been steadily increasing. A fuller analysis of the published data suggests that total time in A&E is only increasing for patients who require admission – and that total time in A&E for non-admitted patients is also unchanged.

Summing Up

The data does not show that the average time in A&E has fallen since 2008. Rather, the typical total time in A&E has risen (for admitted patients, at least), and the typical time to treatment has remained static.

It is welcome that the rich data on the amount of time patients spend in A&E is becoming part of the wider political debate on the NHS. But in order for it to be useful and informative, it must be discussed in a way which fully respects the data.

* Note that the Health Secretary stated on 9th June that the median waiting time had fallen from 77 minutes. This is false.



Author: Carl Baker

House of Commons Library take down blogpost which criticised David Cameron’s NHS claims..........SHOWN ABOVE BUT I COPIED IT BEFORE THEY COULD REMOVE IT
03
Thursday
Jul 2014
Posted by Mike Sivier in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment
5 Votes

Mike Sivier:

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that the House of Commons Library is now being censored by the Tory propaganda police. I hope Labour will do something about this.
Originally posted on alittleecon:

Earier I reblogged a post from the House of Commons Library which fact-checked David Cameron’s claims that waiting times at A&E have fallen. It found those claims wanting. About half an hour later, the post was removed and replaced with this message:

“The blog post “Have A&E waiting times fallen?” has been removed by the House of Commons Library as it does not meet our expected standards of impartiality. A revised post will be uploaded as soon as possible.”

It seems probable that this has been done following howls of protest from the Conservative Party. It seems as though stating facts isn’t impartial if those facts are at odds with something the PM says.

Horray!

How much will that save the UK?

How much to ship them home?

How many body bags are included?

Politics under Cameron and affiliates are resorting to Goebel's level of propaganda to try to stay in power.

A stinking government with stinking moral standards.

Note that the Health Secretary stated on 9th June that the median waiting time had fallen from 77 minutes. This is false.

CAUGHT ONCE AGAIN.

Nice detective work ehhhhhh Fred.

So let me get this straight FARQUIR. (What sort of prick on this planet calls himself Mick Farquire Kipper) Freds bitch this is your life :o)

FARQUIR?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Chris you really need treatment for your alchol abuse.

PISSED YET AGAIN.

He is joining UK.