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.

HEAR IS NEWS FOR GOOD PEOPLE hamas firing rockets from hospital grounds and schools and the people of gaza allowing these terrorists to hide behind babies and women load of cowards .any one supporting these cowards must be terrorists them selves . the red croos should be banned feeding these scum allowing them to buy weapons . the red cross are as evil as hamas

has you see only black and white in my world or yes and no

for those that like money keep your eye on MRW will soon be some action do not miss the boat.

now off to the club big night ahead . have a good weekend all

TANKER calm down bud.

GF,

Perhaps, Haze could have a hyperbaric band around his head.

After all he is a bit of a fat head!

Have a good weekend!?

So what sort of band would you and Fishfinger have around your dicks then?

After all you're a pair of dickheads.

Certainly not one of yours.

Have you changed your knickers recently?

Or is that where your brain is?

Hey Hilary you seem game , hows about it. I could place a tight band with banana skin around my massive pleasure . Her indoors would not like it. but i bet you would.

I reckon you get off on this, just get in touch V DM mail contact.

ps..... dont tell Hays.

The NHS - Britain's national religion - doesn’t have a prayer

Britain can’t afford the ever-expanding NHS – it must charge for some services or cap the insatiable demands made on it by an ageing population


Free healthcare facility in Los Angeles, USA, where there is no national health service. Photo: BLOOMBERG



By Jeremy Warner

6:10AM BST 11 Jul 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10959391/The-NHS-Britains-national-religion-doesnt-have-a-prayer.html


Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony for the London Olympics rightly won plaudits for its celebration of all things British. What foreigners made of the lengthy section focused on hospital beds, nurses and sick children is another matter. Bewilderment probably best describes their reaction.


Britain’s love affair with the National Health Service – once memorably described by the former chancellor Nigel Lawson as the closest thing we have to a national religion – remains as strong as ever, to judge by the political heat it continues to generate.


Pretty uninstructive much of this debate tends to be, too, revolving as it largely does around the statistical fog of waiting times, cancer survival rates, and patient satisfaction surveys. In any case, the constant political barracking gives the impression of an organisation in more or less perpetual crisis – an odd thing, to put it mildly, to command such national pride and untouchable status.


One thing we do know about health spending, however, is that it continues to rise. We also know that unless something more substantial is done to keep it in check, it will eventually overwhelm the public finances.


To see the awful truth, look no further than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s annual “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, published yesterday. On present trends, the OBR concludes, healthcare spending will rise from 6.4 per cent of GDP in 2018/19 to 8.5 per cent 45 years into the future. This might not seem so bad, given the demographic pressures. Unfortunately, the OBR’s estimate relies on some fairly heroic assumptions about the scope for productivity improvement.


The OBR assumes that productivity gain in the NHS will match the long-term trend of 2.2 per cent for the economy as a whole. If it does, it will be a medical miracle tantamount to raising the dead. Productivity gains in health care are traditionally less than half that. If this poorer rate is applied, the OBR admits, you get a much more alarming public healthcare spend of nearly 15 per cent of GDP 50 years from now.

Nor does the forecast take account of the almost limitless nature of demand. To think it can be contained at present levels, given the rapid evolution of new treatments and ways of keeping people alive, is naive. People’s expectations of what the NHS can and should provide are on a strongly rising trend. One example suffices. The cut-off point for dialysis in the event of renal failure used to be around 60. Today, it is routine to treat this largely age-related disorder in the eighties and even nineties. Growing longevity comes at an extraordinarily high price.

Despite these realities, the clamour for ever higher levels of spending continues to mount. Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund, the health-care think tank, recently said that without extra funding to relieve pressure on services, scandals such as Mid Staffordshire would soon be commonplace.

The Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, echoing remarks made by her predecessor as chairman of the health select committee, Stephen Dorrell, has likewise said that without more money, it is hard to see how present standards can be maintained, given the ever-rising demands of an ageing population.

Paul Burstow, a former health minister in the Coalition, is more apocalyptic: the NHS needs an extra £15 billion over the next five years, he says, to avoid collapse.

What none of them address is where the money is going to come from. Health spending is already ringfenced from the main thrust of the Government’s cuts. Spending on the NHS might therefore reasonably be seen as already at the outer limits of affordability relative to other public services. To spend more would require even deeper cuts elsewhere.

Alternatively, higher spending could be met through higher taxes, a possibility Labour seems to be flirting with via increased National Insurance contributions. Good luck with that one. As an electoral message, the idea of higher taxes tends to be even less popular than the apparent taboo of committing to healthcare spending cuts. The Government, meanwhile, puts its faith in a £30 billion efficiency drive. Again, good luck with that one. To the extent that it’s delivering at all, it’s substantially down to reduced pay, which is not a sustainable long-term solution.

A possibly better approach is the one suggested in a survey of NHS professionals by the Nuffield Trust. Almost half of them predicted that, such were the strains, that people would be forced to pay for some services within 10 years.

This is part-privatisation, and no doubt where we will end up. Throwing ever greater sums of public money at healthcare is not, and cannot be, the way forward even if the political consensus for it could be found.

Demand is a bottomless pit. If provision is seen to be effectively free at the point of delivery, it can never be sated.

There is no limit to what doctors can, and will, spend attempting to keep people alive. The older society becomes, the more expensive it gets. If a publicly funded NHS is to survive, some way of capping the demands that are put on it, leaving the rest to private provision, has to be found. Ethically, and morally, this is a much bigger challenge than the politically heated debate around largely futile NHS reform. Yet it must eventually be faced.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100279573/you-cant-ignore-the-evidence-labour-are-still-going-to-lose-the-next-election/

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/07/10/ukip-shares-edging-down-with-the-pollster-that-got-the-may-euro-elections-most-right/

From No 10 to you, by Royal Mail !

12 July 2014

Abuse inquiry: Baroness Butler-Sloss criticism rejected

The Home Office has backed Baroness Butler-Sloss as the right person to lead an inquiry into allegations of historical child abuse, after claims about her over a previous review.

Phil Johnson, who was abused while a choirboy, claims she wanted to exclude some of his allegations in a bid to protect the Church of England.

He says she told him she "cared very much about the Church".

Baroness Butler-Sloss said she had never put institutions before victims.

The Rt Rev Peter Ball, who was bishop of Gloucester and bishop of Lewes in East Sussex, was charged with two counts of indecent assault and one of misconduct in a public office, following her investigation into abuse in the diocese of Chichester during the 1970s and 1980s.

A court heard in April that the 82-year-old retired bishop was too unwell to answer the allegations.

Mr Johnson's claims add to pressure on Baroness Butler-Sloss, who was appointed by Home Secretary Theresa May last week to head a review of how allegations of abuse linked to public institutions in the 1970s, 80s and 90s were handled.

'Distinguished career'
The former High Court judge has faced calls to step down because of her establishment links.

Her detractors point to her late brother, Sir Michael Havers, having been attorney general at the time of the alleged organised abuse that is the subject of her review.

Labour MP Simon Danczuk said her position was tainted because of the connection, while Alison Millar, the lawyer who represents alleged victims of child abuse, said she doubted her clients would think Lady Butler-Sloss was the right person for the job.

Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee pointed out that while Lady Butler-Sloss was "distinguished", she was also a member of the House of Lords.

But the Home Office said it was backing her "unreservedly", adding that she was "beyond reproach".

"Baroness Butler-Sloss has had a long and distinguished career at the highest levels of this country's legal system," a spokesperson said.

"Her work leading the Cleveland child abuse inquiry and as president of the High Court's Family Division make her the perfect person to lead this important piece of work."

Phil Johnson
Phil Johnson was groomed and abused as a nine-year-old choirboy
Mr Johnson, who suffered assaults by a number clergymen when he was a choirboy in the Church of England Diocese in Chichester, said he felt during her review of Church abuse, Baroness Butler-Sloss had been "showing bias and wasn't being impartial".

At a meeting in her House of Lords office in 2011, Mr Johnson says: "She told me that she cared very much about the Church and seemed to be wanting to protect the Church's image."

'Negative publicity'
Mr Johnson alleges that Baroness Butler-Sloss had told him if she included the bishop's name in her report it would distract from the more serious abuse of two priests.

But he also said that she "didn't want to generate any excessive negative publicity for the Church".

"She expressed that by saying that 'the press would love a bishop' and she didn't want to give the press that trophy."

Baroness Butler-Sloss said: "Throughout many years of public service I have always striven to be fair and compassionate, mindful of the very real suffering of those who have been victims of crime or other injustice.

"I have never put the reputation of any institution, including the Church of England, above the pursuit of justice for victims."

Mr Johnson accepts she passed on his allegation against the bishop but says he felt he had little choice but to agree with her decision not to include it in her report.

Speaks volumes......Phil Johnson, who was abused while a choirboy, claims she wanted to exclude some of his allegations in a bid to protect the Church of England.

He says she told him she "cared very much about the Church".

They need to get a replacement.

Aye, go for it gf. Fred mentioned you were an authority on choir boys. Wink wink

Well Chris I dont go troting around on golf courses with 13 year old boys looking for your balls......wink wink.