Marmora Man

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Use your noodle. If know the answer it's unfair to deny the rest of us, that use logic, analysis and argument to reach a conclusion, the details of your illumination.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If you actually read the report (how many > > intending to march have actually bothered?) > you'll > > understand the issues at hand much better. > Make > > up your own minds but the decision has > sensible, > > well reasoned arguments behind it. > > I'm aware, and I do understand that, BUT... > > There are also sensible and well-reasoned > arguments not to impose these cuts to services at > Lewisham. > > Personally, I don't like the precedent it sets if > Lewisham hospital services get deconstructed over > these current issues. So, then, anytime a couple > of hospitals aren't doing great, instead of > actually doing what's morally and financially > necessary to improve them, we'll just look to the > nearest well-functioning hospital and carve it up > instead? These aren't good long term solutions, > IMHO. "instead of actually doing what's morally and financially necessary" - when there are constraints on what is financially possible this absolutist position cannot be sustained. The report proposes a sensible and rational compromise. Sir Bruce Keogh has deplored politicians that oppose sensible rationalisation, as did Lord Darzi on the Today programme his morning, as actually damaging the NHS and affecting its ability to deliver optimum healthcare to the greatest number of people. Selfish might be another description.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rather better because it matches your's MM? > I'm sure there are some very good business reasons > why the proposals may be a good idea, but > everything just can not come down to finances. Rather better yes because it reflects my views. However, my views are shaped by over 20 years working in the healthcare sector - in the NHS, contracting with the NHS, in independent hospitals and in delivering large projects for the NHS. I consider therefore that I bring real knowledge and objective understanding to this topic, rather than Polly T's instinctive opposition to coalition policies and other's more sentimental / emotional arguments.

Top Banana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > South London Healthcare's problems have been > complex and longstanding but can be entirely > nailed down to PFI. PFI was an utterly insane idea > by both Conservative and Labour. Not quite - how can something be complex longstanding AND entirely the fault of PFI? For most of the life of the NHS - managers / administrators spent their budgets unwisely - and the fabric of the hospitals suffered because only the minimum was ever spent on upkeep and maintenance. Hospitals relied on large dollops of capital injected every 20 / 25 years to make up for this failing and build a new hospital. One of the effects of PFI was to build into the running costs the proper and sensible cost of routine maintenance - which had a twofold effect. 1. PFI hospitals will still be safe, effective buildings in 25 years time - not crumbling and leaking edifices requiring major injections of capital. 2. NHS management had to fund this cost of proper maintenance - which reduced the amount of P&L expenditure available for the clinical side of the business. Most found this very difficult to do - but it was every sensible operator of services & buildings would do elsewhere. As a city London has too many hospitals too close to each other. Rationalisation and co-location of critical services will allow for improved services and more effective use of a, necessarily, curtailed budget.

In the US, reportedly, a ban on large sugary drinks (as part of an anti obesity drive) has become a Civil rights issue http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21201680

Being fat is statistically related to relative income and relative education. The lower the income and the lower the education levels the more likely, but not conclusively, it is that you and your family will be overweight. The question is cause and effect. Does being poor make you fat or being fat make you poor?

You could also read this which suggests opposing the closures is ill advised if we want to get the best out of the NHS. Rather better point of view than Polly T's instinctive opposition. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/24/urgent-access-accident-and-emergency

Dopamine 1979 wrote: "but he took it WAY too far this time" - surely that's just the Tarantino style - to complain about it is like complaining that nights are dark.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I got marooned in the Chilterns and had to eat my > own child type thing > > (That actually happened) Check it out: http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Two occasions: 1. Long long time ago as a young midshipman I went ashore in a small port in Indonesia. With friends we ate from a street cafe and expected to pay a few Singapore dollars each for our meal. Instead we were asked to empty our collective wallets by the cleaver wielding chef and a few of his mates. We started running and were lucky to rum immediately into a large group of drunk, hairy arsed old fashioned sailors who decided to look after their "young gentlemen" [the official description of midshipmen]. Result - we watched from the sidelines a fairly bloody battle and later defended the sailors from any charge of returning onboard drunk. 2. On a visit to Gaddafi Libya in about 2006. I arrived at Tripoli airport expecting to be met by the company's agent. A polite Libyan found me on airside and insisted he was my host - not speaking much of the language I followed and got into his car. We drove at very high speed, past the hotel I expected to be staying at and out I to the countryside - no answers to my questions, no news of where I was going, nothing! About an hour later I arrived at a compound in the countryside where it turned out I had been "kidnapped" by a rival agent and that my fears of having been really kidnapped were allayed. Nevertheless, for the 60 minute duration of the drive I was wondering what my future held.

Don't know about that but here: http://tribesports.com/challenges/cycle-the-london-eye-to-eiffel-tower you can find advice and routes about cycling to Paris.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM > > Not sure if you have the other options clear > > Can you see photos from your pc for example? > > I'm assuming you have the relevant menu option > with email address entered? > > I have one setup and does everything I expect it > to so could have a look if you are still stuck It's the options I'm struggling with. Instructions tell me to go to iTunes and select advanced then home sharing but I can't find this menu anywhere. Situation possibly complicated by fact that I appear to have two Apple IDs - but have settled on the one that allowed me to play my music library. If you have time to spare - half an hour of knowledgeable direction would be worth masses of google searches and frustrating helpline guidance. Tho' you'll have to work on the basis of, almost, a total lack of geekery on my part!

Have decided to try using Apple TV - which should give me the ability to control the TV from laptop, iPad or even iPhone as I understand it and therefore watch downloaded movies, view digital photos, and generally "mirror" whatever I have on the devise screen onto the TV screen. However, now really frustrated. Have managed to control my iTunes music library via the TV but cannot seem to set up the necessary "Home sharing" facility to manage the other options. Any advice from more experienced users would be welcome - an in house tutorial for Mrs MM & me would be repaid handsomely!

I dont think the council charges to take away large items of rubbish - much better than just flytipping in the hope someone else will "rescue" it.

There appears to be a growing consensus that we should treat this current cold snap as a national emergency - dire warnings "is your travel really necessary", reminders to wrap up warm, look out for our neighbours, schools closed for safety reasons, extra news reports on BBC, this thread. Hell - less than 2" in S London, all major road routes well gritted, a few trains, planes and buses delayed - this is a minor inconvenience not the natural disaster that some media outlets wish to portray it. In terms of havoc the floods last year were more significant.

Getting a job in the private / charity / public sector is much the same. Look at your CV, highlight your skills, match skills to employer's needs and apply. The private sector isn't a closed shop - in my experience across all three sectors it's far more relaxed about where you obtained your experience but very keen to test exactly what your experience, and hence skils, can offer them. In contrast - try joining the NHS as a middle manager without previous NHS experience.

minder Wrote: > This terrible accident might be a wake-up call for the need for emergency services in London. There are emergency services in London and they dealt with this incident very effectively. I don't see any merit in your argument

I thought the Metro's "Horses for main courses" headline quite good too.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Marmora Man Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > An aircraft flying into a high object is, if > the > > object was identified on relevant air maps, > pilot > > error in the same way that a ship running > aground > > on a charted hazard is a navigational error. > > > > Helos are more flexible about flight planning > in > > general than fixed wing aircraft but it remains > > the pilot's responsibility to check for various > > warnings and chart updates relevant to the > flight > > area before taking off. > > > Yeah, silly fool, serves him right eh. > > Bloody Hell MM, I know as fact your a decent sort > of a chap, but sometimes your posts come over > pretty cold. I was trying to provide some rational and objective information about helo flying. By background I'm a ship's navigator and have spent a lot of time with helo pilots too; I assure you that aviation specialists would be equally blunt - or even more so.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DJKillaQueen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They also pay Council tax (Council tax benefit > > does not pay the entire amount). > > > That depends on the circumstances. > > Rosie's point about JSA is interesting. You can't > blame people for not wanting to take little jobs > if it will basically tip them over the tax > threshold and they're worse off. They should make > JSA Tax Exempt so that any bit of money you earn > is actually worth getting out of bed for. This is one of the clear objectives of Iain Duncan Smith's reforms to create a Universal benefit that does not "dis-incentivise" individuals from joining the workplace. The argument also misses a critical point that once in employment, however badly paid, an individual can improve their position through overtime, training and advancement in the company or by burnishing their CV and seeking a new job eslewhere. Short term thinking along the lines of "this job pays peanuts - it's not worth my while" ignores the longer term benefits. After all - at age 18 it's possible to get a job earning say ?20Kpa rather than go to university / college and gain a professional qualification as a doctor, engineer, architect etc. However, the short term low paid period is far outweighed by the longer term advantage.

Lots of hype, exaggeration and misinformation around. I'd agree there is a fair bit of dog whistle politics going on from the right of the political spectrum but there's roughly the same amount going on from the left demonising businessmen, bankers and anyone running their own business as tax dodging fat cats. Neither position helps the debate. As Hugenot has pointed out only 40% of the population are net contributors to the cost of government. This is not sustainable. However, it is a fact that the total government costs are more than the country can afford, reforming government spending must be a priority.

An aircraft flying into a high object is, if the object was identified on relevant air maps, pilot error in the same way that a ship running aground on a charted hazard is a navigational error. Helos are more flexible about flight planning in general than fixed wing aircraft but it remains the pilot's responsibility to check for various warnings and chart updates relevant to the flight area before taking off.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So which QT film should I start with? Reservoir Dogs - if only for the "Stuck in the middle with you" scene.

Bouncy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Generally speaking individuals don't choose which > A&E to use - unless they are "walking wounded" in > which case there are, generally, not urgent." > > This is not true of babies and children, who are > bought in to the nearest hospital / hospital it is > quickest to reach by their walking parents / > carers. Babies and children deteriorate rapidly > and cannot properly articulate what their symptoms > are - hence the need for them to be seen as > quickly as possible by medical staff who are > qualified to assess them. I believe the threatened > closure will include the specialist children's A > and E at Lewisham, and dread to think what the > consequences of this may be. This is typical of what I described as emotional response - quote "I dread to think what the consequences of this might be". Taken at face value it would require a specialist paediatric A&E unit within 15 minute walk of every household with children - which is patently daft. If a child is severely ill - call an ambulance which will be staffed by qualified paramedics. The paramedics will assess, stabilise and care for the child as it travels (within 30 minutes) to the most appropriate centre. It is not practical for every hospital to offer every specialist service.

This sums it up for me. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?20,file=75127