Marmora Man

Madelaine Peyroux - Bare Bones, Bob Dylan - Together Through LIfe, Marianne Faithful - Easy Come Easy Go.

Two Essex men make centuries - yeah! (MM is Essex born & bred) Following in the glorious footsteps of Gooch & Fletcher.

Why doesn't it work for doctors and nurses? How does it work? Remember, formal channels of complaint had been tried to no avail. How is making the facts of poor treatment and abuse public more wrong than partially compromising the abused patient's confidentiality. Should the poor treatment have been kept confidential? How were patients harmed by the publicity? Have any complained? In many ways it was a hard and brave decision on the part of the nurse concerned. DEliberately compromising her professional standards in order to right a wrong - or if you like disobeying an improper order, something that is explicitly required of the armed forces.

My judgement: World War I (1914?1918) Overall a "just" war. # Easter Rising (1916) More difficult to call - but it was an armed rising in what was then UK at a time when UK was at war. Personally I think the response was disproportionate but a response was required. # Russian Civil War (1918?1922) Supporting a war ally - on balance just (50%) # Third Anglo-Afghan War (1919) I know nothing of this. # Irish War of Independence (1919?1921) An inevitable response of the authorities to an armed rising. Should have been resolved by peaceful political means - but hotheads on both sides prevented this. # World War II (1939?1945) A just war. Tho' the deals with USSR over Poland and other Eastern Europe countries were disgraceful. # Greek Civil War (1941?1949) A just war that, finally, led to UK and others confronting communist expansion in Europe. # Malayan Emergency (1948?1960) A just war that, again, confronted a communist expansion. # Korean War (1950?1953) A just war - again confronted communist expansion # Mau Mau Uprising (1952?1960) A less that just war - given the political climate of the time the "rebels" would have done better to wait out for independence. # Cyprus Emergency (1955?1959) A less than just war - # Suez Crisis (1956) An unjust war # Brunei Revolt (1962) A just war # Dhofar Rebellion (1962?1975) A just war # Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation (1962?1966) # Northern Ireland Troubles (1969-2007) Not a war - but the military, and other responses, were appropriate. # Cod War Confrontation (1975?1976) A foolish confrontation - not a war. # Falklands War (1982) A just war # The First Gulf War (1990?1991) A just war # The Bosnian War (1995?1996) UK wasn't there as a war fighting force # The Kosovo War (1999) UK wasn't there as a war fighting force # Iraqi no-fly zones (1991-2003) Not a war - but a sensible action # Sierra Leone Civil War (2000) A new concept - developed by T Blair - possibly justified by its outcome.

I don't see any paradox here. I am against random surveillance cameras that monitor the everyday goings on in an area with no aim or objective greater than deterring (or more often simply shifting) minor crime. In this case the whistleblower, with the aid of the Panorama programmers, filmed certain individuals and the appalling treatment they were receiving to highlight a problem that was not being taken seriously, despite formal complaints by staff and relatives by the management. The abuse and poor care goes against every tenet of healthcare and, I believe, making it public in this way was justified and overrode the need to obtain consent from individuals before filming. Two very different cases.

Apologies to all readers - the 200 in my previous post should have read 100 - blame big fingers and small keyboard on my phone.

annaj, Like you I work in healthcare (but on that ghastly management side!) I acknowledge that the need for confidentiality is paramount in healthcare - tho' such high minded aims are often confounded on wards, in treatment and consulting rooms by casual comment, poor storage of records, transmission of results etc. It's not as if she revealed the patient's illness, treatment plan or prognosis. As to whether she had other avenues possibly - but I'm sure you have experienced, as I have, the blanking that can go on if senior NHS or other health management is informed of poor / dangerous actions that will cost money and effort to rectify.

Brendan, Judging yesteryears actions by today's standards is always illogical and leads to unsupportable conclusions - eg: apologising to N. Ireland for the potato famine, apologising to Africans for the slave trade. That's not to say we can't acknowledge that such things would be unacceptable today - but without full knowledge of the culture and mores of the time, which by definition we can never have, we cannot even begin to get it right.

Signed. The technical breach of failing to obtain the patient's consent to the filming was, to my mind, required to expose a greater damage to the patient's safety. Has any patient complained about the situation?

Politicians commit country's to war. The military fight the war. I would argue that the majority of wars fought by Britain in the last 200 years have been "just" within the accepted definition. Tony Blair, as PM advanced a new"ish" addition to the clauses above to justify, first, engaging with a tyrant / dictator in Sierra Leone, subsequent humanitarian interventions in the Balkans strengthened his belief that such unilateral acts of military action were, ultimately, for the good. A reasonable argument can be made that this was the case in Sierra Leone and the Balkans. However, he and Bush got it massively wrong in Iraq mostly, as Santerme has outlined, because the plans for the post conflict phase were so poorly thought through. One man did stand out against the invasion plan - Lord Boyce as Chief of Defence Staff insisted that the government assure the military that the invasion and war was legal before he would order the military to take the final action. As we now know this government "sexed up" the dossier, fudged the legal advice and went ahead with the war. Mike Boyce's reward was an early retirement from his post.

So - the same as with MPs then? I work as a volunteer on the fringes of politics and have been involved in various elections since the 1980's. There is absolutely no shortage of prospective parliamentary candidates at the current rates of pay. Indeed there is a vast over supply. The problem is with the quality of the supply - too many end up as simple cannon fodder with no independence, authority or voice. Does anyone believe Jaqui Smith, Harriet Harman or Phil Woolas could earn the equivalent of their ministerial salary (circa ?145,000pa with private chauffeur, and a pension based on 40ths of final salary) in "real life". In some ways the system of the early 20th century when only those either wealthy enough or sponsored by supporters could afford to go into Parliament. At least they weren't in it for the money - and had often made a sacrifice to get there

In 2008 ?39,000 was about $75,000 In 2009 ?45,000 is about $67,500 Which suggests to me that the world price in $$ terms has fallen slightly and that it is the devaluation of the ?? that is responsible for the increase in the price of this imported drug of choice rather than efforts of SOCA. The dilution from roughly 50% purity to on average 20% purity may be the drug dealers decision to combat high cost of imports. The free market can explain everything!

Tessa Jowell has a majority of over 12,000 and Harriet Harman over 15,000. Big task to beat either but the opposition (Cons, Lib Dems, Green) have all put up newly minted candidates who do not have the baggage of incumbent MPs. I would be a happy man to see Harriet Harman ousted in a "Portillo moment" at the 2010 election. (Tho' to be fair"ish" she hasn't been quite as pig like with expenses - but as an Inner London MP didn't have access to a second home allowaance)

Santerme, It's a problem. I do think that, since I first posted this thread, there has been a small but definite sift in public opinion and the pride you mentioned when the Stafford's returned and Central's response is part of that. The Major completing the marathon in 13 days was another good news out of bad news story. People are beginning to separate the politics of the wars from the activities of the military. I do what I can - with business colleagues, friends and neighbours. If I see a soldier in uniform I'll usually talk to him and remind him of my support. I think that's the way to start it - as you say from the bottom up. I'm not a particular fan of Veteran's Day - too jingoistic and government led - the old Navy Days (and presumably Army & RAF equivalents) were very good for engaging with the public - as was the Royal Tournament. Ultimately it needs a much better geared up and funded PR campaign if real change is to happen. I'd love to see pubs, restaurants, travel companies, hotels, clothing shops offer serving and retired servicemen discounts as happens in the States. Interestingly, last week in Bath I was accosted by someone rattling a tin for "Help for Heroes", when I asked if her father, brother or anyone she knew was military she said no - she just thought it a worthwhile cause to campaign for.

Us in the Private Sector would love 5 year guaranteed contracts, with plenty of perks and non-compulsory attendance..... And a pension that would cost ?30,000 a year to provide in "civilian" life - and a bit more now that Gordon and his friend Alistair have decided to tax pension contributions for high"ish" earners.

Been done in similar circumstances but around South Bank. Consoled myself as per Snorky's view - nice, occasionally to be a sucker for a sob story. Won't get done again tho'

I've heard that anti dementia drugs (aditanil ??) help. Otherwise the traditional recipes for me were: 1. Panic. 2. Gallons of coffee - occasionally laced with whisky 3. Several all night revision sessions 4. Hope

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If only the right sort of people could be > attracted into politics in the first place. > > Maybe we just don't pay them enough. > > Italy, for example, pays one of the highest > salaries - and they seem to be a pretty honest > lot. I assume this was an ironic comment - Silvio Berlusconi anyone? In my expereince of Italy (now nearly 15 years out of date so - of course - it may have changed radically) there were two clear systems: 1. The written law & regulations 2. The way things are really done around here - which inevitably required the payment of cash to someone - sometimnes an official to turn a blind eye, somethimes to a "friend" who clould ensure all sorts of actions and / or blind eyes. In Naples this was rum by the Commorra, an organisation you wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of. Payments ranged from a few lira to a street urchin to "guard" your parked car to anything you liked to ensure your house was built, extensions approved, immigrant workforce granted permits and / or not deported, overdue taxes left unpaid, and so on. I've refrained from entering this debate - a plague on all their houses being my immediate response. To an extent I agree with DC - MPs are relatively underpaid, should be allowed appropriate expenses and we shouldn't complain. However, all systems are susceptible to games playing and that is what has happened. So a better, simpler and well audited system is required. I'd suggest that Parliament adopt the system used by any of the top companies - and get a major accountancy firm to administer it - as an additional encouragements to get it right MPs expenses should also be liable to occasional HMRC audits, as private sector companies are and their expense claims should be made public.

Swedish Men

AllforNun Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 100th aniversary of the fleet air arm JUst to be pedantic it's actually 100 years of naval aviation - the RN commissioned an airship in 1909. The Fleet Air Arm has a more chequered history, being run by the RAF during the '30's and didn't particualrly believe in naval aviation, which resulted the Fleet Air Arm entering the Second World War with aircraft (Swordfish Bi-planes) that were closer to First World War aircraft than modern fighting aircraft - see attachment. All the Armed Forces are under threat of cuts in spending - despite reduced funding over last 12 years and increased responsibilities. The RAF are wanting to protect their land based Typhoon programmes, while the Royal Navy wants to protect its new aircraft carriers. While a worthwhile anniversary to celebrate the 100 years of naval aviation is also a subtle (?) RN dig at the RAF which celebrated 90 years of existence last year.

Santerme, you might like to read an earlier thread on the MIlitary Covenant. The majority of posts agreed with the tenet but a few demonstrated an inability to understand the concept. Honour the Covenant

woofmarkthedog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now apparently you can be over prepared for > somethings. I went out the other night , naked > wearing only a condom (ribbed strawberry > flavour)walked into the pub to have a beer & > "ready" for the mandatory end of evening > shag......Well some people found my "readiness" a > little shocking & off putting to say the least. Where were you keeping your cash? > > I mean you just can't win either way sometimes! > > > > W**F > > *...Err.....*

D-C in mathematical terms when calculating combinations of numbers my formula is correct but, you're right, I didn't consider the lottery rules and process. The sum therefore becomes 50 x 49 x 48 x 47 x 46 x 9 x 8 = 1.8301e+10 = 18 plus billion, which remains a large number. You buy one ticket then you buy one of those 18 billion combinations. The chance of winning depends on the rules tho'. If there's no absolute match does the "closest" win - ie all five numbers + one of the lucky star is better than all 5 numbers with no lucky star?

Beware - major pothole developing in Uplands Road approximately 100 yards beyond the junction with Underhill Road. Small hole on surface with major cavity beneath. If the surface gives way the hole will be 2 to 3 foot deep. I have reported it to Southwark via the Community Fix website - but don't anticipate rapid action.

The first number can be chosen in 50 ways, then 2nd in 50 ways, the third in 50 ways, the fourth in 50 ways, the first "lucky star" number in 9 ways and the second "lucky star" number in 9 ways. This gives the calculation for the number of combinations of numbers as: 50 x 50 x 50 x 50 x 50 x 9 x 9 This = 2.53125e+10 or 25,312,500,000 or in layman's terms 25 billion, 312 million, 500 thousand which is a very very large number and far in excess of the 1 in 76 million mentioned. So you'd need to be seriously rich to buy up all tickets and only win back ?112m - bad decision.