Loz

Must have been a beauty - 44 mins later it's gone.

And he's gone!

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Despite all that, in a hypothetical second

> referendum, would people still vote Brexit?

Quite possibly. Many people, rightly or wrongly, still do actually believe Brexit will make their lives better.

Which is why Brexiters are so very against the concept of a referendum on the final deal - once people actually see what the future really is, they may not be so keen.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz,

> "The country is sick of low living standards, and polls show that people are fed up with austerity

> cuts to public spending. Voters wanted and expected Brexit to make them richer."

>

> Correct. Cannot disagree with this part. As for your second paragraph yes, it might takes years to

> improve the lot of the less fortunate. What's

> wrong with that.

Because it is very unlikely that Brexit will 'improve the lot of the less fortunate'. And it is pretty much certain it will make things worse for them in the short to medium term.

Because many people that voted for Brexit think it is a panacea for the problems. A decade to get over the upheaval is the minimum we can expect, with lower GDP in that time. The knock-on effects of that will affect them directly - because guess who cops it when GDP drops? And, even if the Brexiteers can pull it off (which is doubtful), it is almost certain these 'poorer areas of the UK' will not see the benefits they are expecting. They've been sold a pup.

I'm reminded of the TV interview in the weeks following the Brexit vote, where a Welsh guy said, "Really, what has the EU ever done for us". The interviewer pointed out they were standing in an EU funded sports centre. Or Cornwall, who were surprised to find that all that EU funding they get might stop after Brexit.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's been patently obvious from day 1 that all you

> people in your ED bubble have NO Idea what is

> going on in the poorer areas of the UK .....so I

> give up- you'll have to just suck it up when it

> comes.

Actually, I think the article has that nailed... "The country is sick of low living standards, and polls show that people are fed up with austerity cuts to public spending. Voters wanted and expected Brexit to make them richer."

So, when Brexit fails to make things better - and almost certainly makes it worse for at least a decade - we're all going to have to suck it up when it comes.

Was it on at the time? If so, it's probably fatal. Liquid + electrity = bzzzttt.

The disk will probably be fine, though, so you might be able to get the data off it.

The Mash Report last night: "Scaramucci - a man who looks like every single 80's movie baddie."

The problem is that Brexit is a massive change and yet we have a government that seems to have no credible plan as to how we are going to get there. And, to make it worse, we have an opposition who has no idea either.

It's like overpowering a pilot at 33000ft in the air, hurling him out the cargo door and only then asking, 'anyone know how to fly a plane?' and seeing a lot of confused faces. And then when people start questioning why you threw the pilot out, you saying "well, if you are going to be all negative about this, this plane will probably crash..."

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Negative Seabag.

>

> Try positive

OK. Britain is most positively better off in Europe.

Is that better?

You can do it online. Google is your friend.

Worth noting that PDF is a document format and you are talking video, so you probably want mp4 format.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz do you have a link please.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40733491

and

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/charlie-gard-hearing-live-updates-10874485

This seems to be rapidly descending into a horrible farce.

The parents still can't come up with an acceptable plan. They seem to be grudgingly accepting of the hospice, but want the feeding tube to stay in for 'a week or so'. They say they've found a suitable doctor, but there are question marks over his experience in palliative care.

Seems the parents are trying desperately to stretch out the process for as long as possible. Understandable, but is it really in the little one's best interest? I'm not sure it's even in the parent's best interests.

Internet sites (predominantly newspapers) that go "oooh, you've scrolled right past my nice video, so I'll float it in a window that covers a quarter of your browser so you can't see much of anything else".

No, I scrolled past your video BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO WATCH YOU STUPID AD-FILLED CRAP VIDEO.

Annoying barstewards.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.express.co.uk/

>

> The parents have agreed for Charlie to die in a hospice. Parents feel hospial have put obstacle

> After obstacle in there way.

As of this moment, the parent have not agreed anything - your link doesn't even say they have. The case goes on in the high court.

I agree with you that it would be good if they could take him home, but it seems that is just not practical. Apart from anything else, it was said that the oxygen equipment alone won't fit in their house - we're not talking a tank of gas and a mask here. He's in intensive care being kept alive by some pretty serious medical kit. You can't just recreate that in someone's home.

I think they should be allowed to take him home, but it may not be possible.

From the Beeb...

GOSH said that as far as it is aware, invasive ventilation is only provided in a hospital setting.

"It requires air to be forced into the lungs. For reasons that are obvious, that process and the correct, safe positioning of the tube have to be monitored by an ITU trained nurse at all times, with an ITU doctor on call and close at hand. Those resources cannot be provided by GOSH to Charlie at his parents' home.

GOSH is aware that there are other practical problems one being that the ventilator does not fit through the front door."

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you can't see anything @#$%& up with the

> parents finding out the results the way they did,

> or don't see any connection to a break down of

> communication or disregard then that's your view.

You are right - it shouldn't have happened like that. My reading is the results had just arrived, so court should have really been adjourned for both sides to examine them.

> I would have thought it fell outside of the law,

> the couples solicitor has argued it should not

> have came out then. I suppose it's easier to

> scrutinise the parents.

Actually, it seems the couple's solicitor seems to have thought it should not have been introduced as evidence at all. From your link: "But the couple?s lawyer, Grant Armstrong, argued that the hospital should not have told the court the scan results as it was medical information and should not have been put in the public domain."

Considering the case was entirely pivotal on medical evidence, that seems a rather strange view.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unfortunately, it is not only the helmet-less

> thief who is in danger if pursued but also

> pedestrians, as the thief would not baulk at

> mounting the pavement etc to get away.

That could happen even if they are wearing a helmet and, by the 'rules', could be pursued.

And where do you draw the line - after all, any (alleged) criminal being pursued might do something to endanger the public.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is a rare disease, it is not clear how the earlier scans differed from the most recent but it

> seems there was a substantial change for the parents to give up the fight. There seems to be an

> assumption that the parents could not understand the condition because they were emotionally

> overcome.

The parents gave up the fight because the doctor that was giving them false hope changed his mind after seeing the new scans.

And, it seems, finally reading Charlie's other medical records which he had not yet read.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At the theatre the security guard was checking the

> contents of my bag thoroughly (middle-aged women

> being a suspect demographic). She suddenly

> stopped, gave me a funny look, pointed at the

> bottom of the bag and said, 'What's that?' I'd

> forgotten the large courgette wrapped in a plastic

> bag. Mortified.

"Is that a courgette in your bag madam? Well, it seems to be buzzing with excitement at seeing the play."

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you mean 'liability' rather than 'onus'?

> Would the presumption be a rebuttable one?

I think you are trying to take a wayward tangent to the point I am making.

> What specific defect in law are you actually

> seeking to remedy?

The one that means police officers are be held responsible if an rider dies or is injured because they crash whilst being pursued without a helmet.

drew Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fake news!

>

> Typical ED residents feeling jealous of all the

> wonderful things Sydenham has to offer.

>

> Bigger houses, more parks for the kids, better

> transport, nicer gyms, less of the Clapham crowd etc

You forgot Sydenham's clear superiority in dogging locations.

Now that the legal fight is over, I hope that the parents are allowed to take him home for his last days. I recall they were told they can't a few weeks ago, but I hope someone can make it happen. It will help give them some sort of closure.

I once received an email from someone called P.K. Chiu. Made my day, that did.

Sorry, I went all Kiwi for a moment!

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can buy bigger packets from Asian supermarkets, which will encourage you to spoon in

> the spices with a freer hand.

You don't even have to find a different shop. Instead of going to the herbs and spices area of the supermarket, head to the "world foods" aisle and you'll usually find bugger packets for less cost.