SeanMacGabhann

Hmm - SOME points for attempted humour. Grudgingly. But what next... Coming soon - poster PeveQ with a "discussion" about "Black people - they're a bit dodgy aren't they????" - hey no facts and figures, just some newspaper innuendo based on a less-than-accepted report but at least it Cause A Discussion, Hey??? EDIT: That isn't to equate anyone with racist views - just to point out that "hey it caused a debate" isn't a great argument

I think that would be a decent place to start. But that wasn't quite where you started. If nothing else, the response from NHS staff on here alone should have been sufficient to give pause for thought But to address your points - You said you haven't misquoted me - I disagree my words were: " I think one of the reasons the NHS (that is the thread topic after all) has higher rates is the size of the organisation. The bigger any organisation the harder it is to micro-manage things like this.... I'm only saying that is ONE possible reason." Your words were: "Sean thinks it?s because the NHS is too big" I believe that is a misquote As for your point : "in fact when did I ever say this? " you are the creme de la creme but your colleagues in the back room let the side down...". Are you attempting to misquote me? " your words were "they can also a cushy number for those removed from the necessities of front line action (back office functions = approx half the NHS payroll) with a less than honorable work ethic. And don?t expect to see this portion of the NHS or PS workforce posting here to admit it." Am I wrong in equating the two? At best... AT BEST.. the subtext is frontline staff are cool, but money is diverted from frontline services by covering for the backoffice staff You seem surprised at the vehemence of the response - could it not be the "so be it" attitude which is causing that? As repeatedly stated by various parties, there is a discussion to be had here - but to effectively walk into a room shouting "you're all skiving"... I mean... what did you expect? Subsequent posts haven't really recanted that position either, leaving the accusation hanging - "he's having a pop". However much you deny it How about - "A report suggests that absence is 50% higher in the NHS compared with elsewhere - can any of our NHS posters shed any light onto why this might be? Is it true? Are you left high and dry by 'colleagues' or are there occupational/curcumstantial reasons behind this" Even then, the dismissal of any answer by (and forgive me for repeating this) PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!! as just vacuous flim-flam isn't very edifying Have I mentioned there IS a discussion to be had here? I have? good "Dodgy" absence rates will bother the "good" NHS staff as much as you MrBen - but they are unfailingly trying to explain there may be more to it than "skiving" - if the debate is going to make any progress it will need a little less high-handed judgemental.... ness. Or something Again, more specifically - I asked for a) evidence broken down by private sector occupations (to compare fairly, of course) b) why, of all occupations, you have chosen the NHS, in this week of all weeks, to have a go

Oi oi oi I was at pains to point out that the size of the NHS was ONE factor. So much so I repeated the point! How dare you pick that one point out of the argument I made... not on. If I am completely wrong in my argument than so be it but I won't be misrepresented like that MrBen - I don't normally have a problem with you but you are bang out of order on this thread. If nothing else you are disrespectful to all the, clearly, commited and professional NHS staff who are taking the time to respond to you i don't take kindly to being misquoted either As for quoting Sir Digby foookin Jones - WTF??? Any wanker who thinks that ?4.85 an hour in the 21st century is sufficient is someone I don't need to listen to You are only being direct and honest?? Really? You talk about data, and yet I asked for data breaking down different sections of the private sector. Nothing from you on that score as for "Instead we are left to console ourselves with the impotent yet valid anecdotal evidence of many, a massive loss to the tax payer (and to end patient care), and always the misplaced, shrill indignation from the genuinely hardworking NHS staff who miss the point and rush to the defense of the Sacred Cow at the slightest challenge." A massive loss to the taxpayer? Sacred Cows? misplaced, shrill indignation ??? You started the debate in shrill, misplaced tones - don't you dare target other people with that And always with the bleating taxpayer - simply put, you are one of the welloff privileged few on this planet. You want for nothing. If the absence rate WAS reduced to 2 days a year, the savings in your pocket, or most of our pockets would be minimal - but here you are, seriously pissing away goodwill and morale in an already beleagured frontline to score some brownie points with some CBI-friendly buddies?? Oh but wait, no - you are more worried about money being diverted from the frontline of services right? if you want serious welfare-dodgers look at the people domiciled elsewehere because of "punitive" tax rates (boo hoo - if the nasty government is mean to us we will leave the country. And still complain about the nurses) Rank You sound like SteveT in is "we are all gagged from telling the truth thread" Look it - the NHS staff posting on here have said, there plenty of discussion to be had about high absence rates. But your continual, snidey, petty, insinuations ("you are the creme de la creme but your colleagues in the back room let the side down....") are really out of order The NHS has PLENTY of room for improvement. It is not a sacred cow. Your year working there no doubt was an eye opener. But it ain't special. It happens everywhere Now - direct question to you Mr Ben- what is your purpose in picking on the NHS specifically(esp in light of the transatlantic debate in recent weeks)

Oh it's easy enough to look up on the internet or if you search this forum from... ooh about 2 years ago, there was a long discussion * digs around a bit * It's news to some people and not to others

It's Orwellian and evil isn't it ?

Geez quids if it bothers you that much would it not be easier fir you to join the nhs?

"my mob" being as comprehensively private sector as it gets Ok so your terms are, I would say, about average. And they allow for the levels of absence being quoted in the NHS (10ish days) I don't see how the private sector are handling this better. If I think of anyone I know across all private sectors, several of them I would classify as skivers, and all of them know serial off-sick people at their work. No doubt there are organisations which are super-efficient at dealing with the serially-ill - but are they better organisations? Do they last longer? Do they provide better long term gains to customers and/or shareholders? Or are they just macho "we don't tolerate any bullshit" operations which come and go I genuinely do not believe the "private sector" as a whole is better at this I think one of the reasons the NHS (that is the thread topic after all) has higher rates is the size of the organisation. The bigger any organisation the harder it is to micro-manage things like this. Price of doing business and all of that. And don't quote me back as some liberal, East Dulwichite - I have been of the same opinion wether I was unemployed, working on 3 grand a year or where I am now - it's not a question of "well, you can afford to say that" 2 points there - 1) I'm only saying that is ONE possible reason. and 2) I'm not using that point to suggest the NHS should be scaled down But what I'm finding it harder to understand is the willingness to ascribe the figures quoted to "skiving" and to have this whole feeling of "I'm being robbed - I'm being abused - I'm a tax payer!" and to then come across like the archetypal beancounter. There is an absence of generosity-of-spirit in this debate Everytime an NHS person defends their position and talks about shift-work, stress, heavy lifting etc, the retort is "well, these exist in the private sector too darlin' " (I added the darlin myself - maybe I'm misreading the subtext) But the average private sector job does not combine these things, and not over 30 or 40 years. So if you were to look at comparable jobs in the private sector and extract the absence figures from that I'd be willing to bet it's higher than the average quoted. I could be wrong on that for sure.. but I'd be interested What would make people complaining happy? Does the NHS have to get rates down to the private sector levels? You are sure that can be done?

So what is the sickness policy at your work quids?

Level 3 Swindon Late 80s NY mix of Heartbeat by Psychedelic Furs Sweeeeet

I would say things are "different this time"... for now (say the next 3-6 months) and we won't see much upward movement Depending on how things pan out, it may then revert back to previous steep hikes That said, having a new government may kickstart a new "outlook" even tho the Bank has had independance for the last 12 years

I would argue that Twitter is more useful in my day to day life than Facebook by some distance Look, it even made Ted Max get all serious and play a straight bat so it can't be JUST fluffy pap, right?

I'm never sure if I'm glad or sorry I never went to college/uni I would agree that basic reading/writing/numeracy skills have declined, just from people I have hired or work with On the other hand many of those same people, with excellent results have been very bright and more skilled in other areas - a broader range of knowledge than older people for example I have never been comfortable with skimming off the highest scorers - it's too narrow a measurement. If A levels are genuinely "dumbed down" and were restored to previous levels, with fewer students passing with distinction, that would help employers and universities choose. But I don't believe it helps them choose the "best" people.

So am I lulu. Fine stuff

and more importantly, when?

Oh Jeremy Jeremy Jeremy... the road to salvation is LITTERED with the corpses of those who have "taken Tony on" and failed...

Spooky... but it's not me I promise He/She knows how to type "teh" for a start But how did you come across it??

I was going to go with "sofa" but if you insist Dave

sloTH? ;-)

initially it can be.... not confusing, more counter-intuitive I have met people from over 2 years ago, who have become good friends, who struggle to call me by my more common name On the other hand, with some people it would seem silly to call by their forum name - Bigbadwolf or Administrator for example The closer to involving a "real" name their online name is the less of a deal it is - I'm guessing your name would be easy enough?

I'm finding a lot of the comments on this thread either wrong, or just silly As a news aggregator I often read stories a day or two before publication in several papers thanks to twitter. In that sense it is no worse, and often more useful than what most people posting on here do online - which is neither here nor there apart from the fact that people seem to dismiss it or look down their nose at it I have never sent a message about my breakfast or ablutions - clicheville. And look at the name it's got "twit" in it - hahahahahahaahahh. And it sounds like twat!! Hilarious sheesh I'm guessing most of the people condemning it have never used it in earnest As for the form itself it probably is a stopgap for something else - entirely likely that in 24 months the name twitter will be history - but the concept will be integrated into something else And any political party which ignores it as a communications tool ould be very foolish indeed

The report claims that absenteism is 1.5 times higher than the private sector - but not everyone is rushing to claim that a large part of that extra 50% is dishonest absenteeism Largely focused on what the NHS can do for the staff (as the reports does) rather than accusing them of being dishonest strikes me as fair enough and a way forward. But some people are obsessed with how much they are being fleeced by and therefore see it everywhere Nor am I condoning dishonest sickies - but by the same token, would I trust anyone who NEVER EVER had a Monday in bed??

geometry wars 2 is great for leaderboard action as well I can't do the big FPS games online as I last seconds

top posting indeed annaj I think I predicted something along these lines a few weeks ago http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?27,326525,327755#msg-327755 and it is clear that the main purpose of the Times article is shite-stirring As BN5 said in his post there are discussions to be had around this topic but when the question is so skewed to begin with.. To be slightly fair to the OP he is no desk-jockey and he works stupendously hard but where The City long hours culture is acknowledged to lead to burn-out after a few years, we hopefully want our NHS staff to be around a little longer than the average coke-sniffing trader To be slightly less fair to the OP, the tone of the initial post was so self-rigtheous, unfair and indignant over something so petty it was a delight to read BN5's flounceatious reply

And even tho you haven't posted a link for a while, Zero Punctuation remains in top form of late..

Trials HD is great - and the leaderboards are adddictive too But it does lead to a LOT of swearing. Still oving the ragdoll animation when a head lands on a platform, but not the whole bike I have only done the - ahem - trial version so far but will probably succumb and buy the whole thing