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.

Yes Fred your right Milly is a man who will grow into the job and prove everyone wrong.

Bollocks!!!!! LOL He will always be known as the man who stabbed his own brother in the back.

Google censors story about George Osborne's brother converting to Islam

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/google-censors-story-george-osbornes-3812503#ixzz36XFNFCAb

Jul 04, 2014 21:05 By James Lyons
The news story link was one of several deleted by the internet search giant in the wake of the European Court’s “right to be forgotten” ruling


George Osborne and his brother Adam

Google has censored a story on Chancellor George Osborne’s brother converting to Islam.

The article about Dr Adam Osborne becoming a Muslim, in preparation for his marriage to Bangladeshi-born Rahala Noor, was first published five years ago. But the internet giant has deleted some links to the story in the wake of the European Court’s “right to be forgotten” ruling.

The move came after a request from an unknown person. Google denies being over-zealous in enforcing the judgment.

The firm has received more than 70,000 requests relating to a quarter of a million websites since it was handed down in May and admits a “backlog” of cases has built up. Journalists have reported articles being erased after the subject complained. But Google said it has begun reinstating some articles it had removed earlier this week.

Peter Barron, from Google, said: “We are learning as we go.”

It is all pretty pointless as the rules only apply to Google.co.UK as not Google.com. plus you can go to any other search engine and find all the deleted items as the ruling only applies to Google.

How it should be!

What is taking so long? They can nick and prosecute 40 year old allegations without any proof, but they cant seem to get their shit lined up when it coms to the politicians.



'More than 10' politicians on list held by police investigating Westminster 'paedophile ring'

Whistleblower who prompted Operation Fernbridge says up to 40 MPs and peers knew about or took part in child abuse



Cyril Smith is among the politicians on a list of names held by police investigating historic child abuse Photo: REX FEATURES



Gordon Rayner
By Gordon Rayner, and David Barrett

10:00PM BST 04 Jul 2014



More than 10 current and former politicians are on a list of alleged child abusers held by police investigating claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.


MPs or peers from all three main political parties are on the list, which includes former ministers and household names.


Several, including Cyril Smith and Sir Peter Morrison, are no longer alive, but others are still active in Parliament.


The existence of the list was disclosed by Peter McKelvie, the whistleblower whose claims prompted Operation Fernbridge, the Scotland Yard investigation into allegations of a paedophile network with links to Downing Street.


Mr McKelvie, a retired child protection team manager who has spent more than 20 years compiling evidence of alleged abuse by authority figures, said he believed there was enough evidence to arrest at least one senior politician


More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10947561/More-than-10-politicians-on-list-held-by-police-investigating-Westminster-paedophile-ring.html

Max protected by MI5. See post above.

Thatchers finger prints all over this.

Two letters from Andy Burnham concerning Cameron’s lies about A&E waiting times

July 4, 2014

1) Andy Burnham calls on UK Statistics Authority to clarify Cameron claims on A&E waiting times

Andy Burnham MP, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, has today written to Sir Andrew Dilnot, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, following claims made by David Cameron in Prime Minister’s Questions on July 2nd and further research by the House of Commons Library published yesterday.

David Cameron has been accused of misleading MPs over A&E waiting times, after a claim he made three times was challenged by the politically neutral House of Commons Library. Cameron’s claim that average waiting times had more than halved under the Coalition was based on “a simplistic reading of the data”.

In a blog on the House of Commons Library website, researcher Carl Baker wrote that A&E data “must be discussed in a way which is useful and informative”. The blog post was removed from the website, with a message in its place which said it had been taken down “as it does not meet our expected standards of impartiality”. The message said a revised blog post would be uploaded “as soon as possible”.

The researcher also said that a similar claim, made last month by the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, that the median waiting time had fallen from 77 minutes, was “false”.

In fact, there had been no reduction in waiting times, and total time spent in A&E was actually increasing.

A copy of Andy Burnham’s letter is below:

Dear Sir Andrew,

Prime Minister’s statements on average waiting times in Accident and Emergency.

I am writing to seek clarification about recent claims by the Prime Minister about waiting times in Accident and Emergency units in England. As you may be aware, on 2 July the Prime Minister informed the House of Commons that average A&E waiting times had fallen from 77 minutes to 30 minutes.

“Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly how long people are waiting. When the shadow Secretary of State was Secretary of State for Health, the average waiting time was 77 minutes; under this Government, it is 30 minutes.”

David Cameron, Hansard, 2 July 2014, column 883
“The average waiting time is down by more than half. That is better.”
David Cameron, Hansard; 2 July 2014, column 883

In addition, the Health Secretary informed the House of Commons on 9 June that “the median wait for an initial assessment is only 30 minutes under this Government, down from 77 minutes under the last Government.”

“NHS staff are working incredibly hard to see and treat these patients within four hours, and it is a tribute to them that the median wait for an initial assessment is only 30 minutes under this Government, down from 77 minutes under the last Government.”
Jeremy Hunt, Hansard, 9 June 2014, column 288

But the House of Commons Library, in a blog post that has since been removed, says that “total time in A&E has been steadily increasing” and that “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”. And they say that it is “false” to claim, as the Health Secretary did, that the median waiting time has fallen from 77 minutes, because “the median has remained more or less unchanged at around 10 minutes to initial assessment”.

I would be very grateful if you could consider the accuracy of the Prime Minister’s and Health Secretary’s statements, and in particular to clarify whether “time to initial assessment” is an accurate indicator of “average waiting time” in A&E, and whether it is an accurate indicator of overall A&E performance.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Burnham

scroll2

2) House of Commons Library research devastating for Cameron on A&E waiting times

Following the publication of a blog by the House of Commons Library debunking the Prime Minister’s claims on A&E waiting times at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s Questions, Andy Burnham MP, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, has written to David Cameron asking him to correct the record.

Andy Burnham said:

“This analysis from the House of Commons Library is devastating for the Prime Minister. “It exposes his cynical spin on the NHS and suggests he is guilty of giving a misleading impression of what is happening.

“David Cameron needs to hold his hands up, return to Commons and correct the record. It is only by being up front about what is really happening can a proper plan be developed.”

Letter to David Cameron from Andy Burnham:

Dear Prime Minister,

Yesterday at Prime Minister’s Questions you told the House that average A&E waiting times had fallen from 77 minutes to 30 minutes.

“Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly how long people are waiting. When the shadow Secretary of State was Secretary of State for Health, the average waiting time was 77 minutes; under this Government, it is 30 minutes.”

Hansard, 2 July 2014, column 883

However, today the House of Commons Library, in an analysis of A&E waiting time data published on their blog at http://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/07/03/have-ae-waiting-times-fallen/, has comprehensively debunked your claim. They say that “it relies on a simplistic reading of the data, and that the measure [the Prime Minister] refers to is not the most natural indicator of the ‘average waiting time’ in A&E”. The Library says that the data “does not support the PM’s statement”.

The Library goes on to say that on median time to treatment, and median time in A&E, which “are more natural ways to report ‘average A&E waiting times’ – there has been no reduction in waiting times… and total time in A&E has been steadily increasing”.

The Library concludes that “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)”.

Given that they have risen, it was wrong for you to claim that average A&E waiting times have fallen. I trust that you will want to take the earliest opportunity to correct the record.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Burnham

-

It now takes me between 10 and 14 working days to get to see my local GP and this as gradualy got worse and worse and its happened since 2010.

Before the Tories got into power it took about 2 days at the most.

As anybody else had this same problem?, it would be interesting to see other peoples experience wether negative or positive. cheers.

It was interesting that a spokesman for The Kings Fund agreed with Cameron the other day regarding waiting times.

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/

The King's Fund is an independent charity working to improve health and health care in England. We help to shape policy and practice through research and analysis; develop individuals, teams and organisations; promote understanding of the health and social care system; and bring people together to learn, share knowledge and debate. Our vision is that the best possible care is available to all.

Well hes probably been conned by Camoron as the true figures are out now Hays.

Sometimes you really are gullible.

How many days does it take you to see your local NHS GP???????and I mean within the last 18 months.

I can see my GP next day and sometimes same day. I have never waited for more than three days.

Thanks Hays. This is a NHS practice??. And this appointment is not an emergency appointment??

OTHERS please what are your experiencies.??

Just an ordinary practice. I never see any immigrants in the area. It is a sort of white ghetto as well.

Yep but I remember you commentating on your local A@E where you said it was like a cattle market full of immigrants with ALL THE FAMILY with them.

Im wondering if this is a regional problem with NHS GP appointments.

I think poster shortie said he had a short waiting time aswel at his GP.

Wonder if it gets worse the further north you move up from London or are some parts of london bad aswel??

Anyway off to watch Bouchards legs at the tennis.....amazing.

That is not my local A&E. In fact it was an outpatients dept in Hampstead. The catchment for the Hospital is huge. It is not even my local hospital.

Some parts of London are very bad. My mother in law is in a bad area for GPs.

Or bad GPs.

Let us consider the delayed being seen patients are a back log.

If the GPs worked an extra 2 hours a day, then they would be able to clear that back log within a short period of time.

If they were paid an extra £50 per patient to cleared the back log, some would work night and day.

Also, if they were more efficient of making diagnosis within the first couple of appointments, they could cut down on number of "return" or "follower up" appointments.

Also, there is in many practices a problem of continuity of treatment in GP and hospital medicine, which adds to the inefficiency and acceptance of ongoing responsibility for the patient.


The NHS has always been inefficient and that needs to be addressed, but it having the "NHS" it is part what makes a decent society.