Huguenot

I don't think it was a Times survey, it was an independent audit of NHS staff and surveys were only a part of it. You can't deny the message because you don't like the messenger. Poor form. You'll find it in the other press also. The audit actually assumed that NHS staff were genuinely ill. It said they were 50% more ill than the general population. That was a generous assumption when you considered that the audit also revealed that results were inconsistent between hospitals (rather negating the 'made sick by patients' argument), and that the inconsistency paralleled other performance measures. You'd have to review your own experience as to what proportion of these days were genuine illness and what was skiving. It would be an intersting thing to know if it was the 'NHS' factor, or the 'public sector' factor. Presumably we can compare with other public sector jobs. It would still be nice to find out if the 'long working hours' is a myth. Do the NHS or don't they subscribe to the working time directive?

Why is working in the private healthcare sector not as hard? What are the hours that make people shuddder? My understanding is that the working time directive is followed by all NHS employees apart from junior doctors. That's 48 hours, which is kind of standard. My last full time job I averaged around 60. Incidentally, you didn't really address the question about what the NHS could learn from these results?

Ha! You're setting up Italy as an aspirational target??? Good man, good good man. You would also be aware of the working class support for the Lega Nord, including separate trains for immigrants - and indeed "dress them up like hares and bang-bang-bang". It's so 70s it's like a cross between 'Love thy Neighbour' and 'Rivers of Blood'. Mind you, if you're going to get all Italian on us (I suspect a significant part of your immersion course in Italian workforce relations) you'll be aware that the definite article 'the' is attached to the proper noun 'Colloseo'. Hence you can either have 'il Colosseo' or 'The Colosseum' but none of that pussy-footing in between.

I agree with both Piersy and HAL9000. It's why I favour isolated SE Asian agricultural economies ;-)

Sure thang SteveT, I don't want the issue to be diverted. In this case I believe we have a baby-boomer red herring... "We didn't really take it from you, it was our own money" ;-) However, I'm not trying to do a slag-off on this, just to highlight the example.

I'm quite grateful for Sean's views, and it's great to hear a voice of reason otherwise this could have the veneer of a rational debate. Quite clearly any position that... a) insists that something exists simply because there's no evidence for it not to exist is bonkers b) insists that something exists because a vote will prove it is bonkers c) insists that something exists because we're all anxious about demons in the closet is bonkers d) insists that something exists because we don't have enough laws to prevent it existing is bonkers I'm irrationally happy that Sean has let slip that his phone was tapped. Having lived in China for 18 months with my phone tapped 'live', I had calls terminated and interfered with on a constant basis. I was attacked by numbnuts for refusing to back off in the face of corruption. I don't know how many people on the EDF have experienced this. It doesn't create a feeling of righteous indignation, quite the opposite. It certainly doesn't inspire cloak over the nose insinuations. It does create a sense of personal impoverishment, a reckless finger-raising abandonment. I've never felt this in the UK, and I struggle to believe it's because I'm not enlightened. It's because corruption isn't rampant.

There's nothing worse than a smug winner.

As a profession since teaching is paid from the public purse (my family are all teachers BTW, I'm a strong supporter), it would be hard to claim that the scheme is funded by teachers? My family didn't have second jobs in the private sector from which to contribute funds. "an unfunded defined benefits scheme" seems fair.

Quite right SteveT, and an exceptionally good reason to keep government out of justice. The army don't make good judges or juries, they're just very good at executions. It does not a happy world make. Strictly speaking the Home Secretary is not responsible for the courts. That's the Ministry of Justice. The Attorney General is responsible for prosecuting cases and advising the government on legal issues. The AG will traditionally come from a legal not political background. Both are separate from the Home Secretary.

No bombing or swimming in the diving area either. I'm a cat person, but would have thought one thread that you update is quite sufficient. If you'd done this in the first place you'd probably have been well below the radar. Please don't think there's anything lesser about the section you're in. Like you pointed out, you rehoused triple the number of animals by doing that. You don't want to turn yourself into a Foxtons and lose customers because of over-aggressive marketing!

They do look a bit crap don't they. I often wondered about the ownership of art by government. Doesn't sit right with me. If they want things owned on behalf of the people, then set up a gallery and give it a grant. If they want to ensure access to the people, then subsidise tickets. If they want to use them as long term investments, then really they should have spent the budget on more important things before year end. We don't have a local council as an alternative 'savings and loan'.

I don't know that PJ Hill's campaigning could be considered ironic? Campbell Malone though, is being highly ironic... "we have a government that is positively hostile to the notion of miscarriages of justice" As a lawyer he should be working extra flipping hard to get government out of justice. If he's trying to politicise the legal process then I'd say he was your arch enemy HAL9000? That way madness lies....

Everything's possible. I was responding to Macroban's request that she would "like to reflect on how examples of this pervasive corruption might exist in our local community." I think if Macroban only intended to discuss local government, then she would be better off writing 'local government' - if she doesn't want to talk about corruption in our 'local community' then I'd recommend not using the words 'local community'. It'll help me understand. Likewise, if you'd only like to talk about government, then I'd steer clear of words like 'ubiquitous' which mean 'existing everywhere' - it implies you've extended your argument out of government into the 'everywhere' place.

Demolished by HAL9000? Chuckle :)) So far as I can make out his 'proof' of ubiquitous corruption is to have a vote. Excellent, what else can we prove by voting? The existence of aliens? I'm pleased to notice that HAL has downgraded 'ubiquitous' to 'widespread', I hope that he will use his wise judgement to bring him closer to 'sporadic but ill addressed by legislation' which is a more accurate reading of the two excellent articles he has quoted. Our ED community is corrupt too eh Macroban? You've been bribing the Cheese Block and threatening the Post Office again? Anyone trying to calculate how widespread corruption is need only review the hundreds of transactions they make personally every week. From buying a pint to hopping a ride on public transport, I can't find any that could sensibly be described as corrupt. I suppose if you believed that property is theft and making a profit is a menace then they could all be corrupt?

For sure, you may claim the last word. I gently refer to my original request, furnish your argument with evidence of ubiquity or fall foul of hyperbole. We must remain vigilant.;-)

I note that you didn't think it was 'representative of the local people'; the Council is of course voted in to a representation role by the local people, and in that sense is definitively representative of the people. Unlike your own views. If you want to be a 'representative of the local people' why don't you see if you can actually get voted in rather make sweeping claims that are unsupported by the democratic process?

Rampant, pervasive and ubiquitous all communicate exactly the same spirit. The tragedy is that you bandy around quips like 'not even wrong' without recognising through the fog of your self-regarding wit that you're looking in the mirror. In that respect your admiration for the terminology of bepimpled nerds is poorly placed. Like Fisking, it smacks of the intellectual rigour of "arf arf, he said 'period'" It is your argument that is 'not even wrong' in your puerile waft of clever clever internet debater 'references'.' You've delivered no support for your argument that corruption is "pervasive and ubiquitous", instead referencing some misty 'inner knowledge' that smacks of public schoolboys breathily squeaking "and I'm a spy, and I've been in the SAS, and the government's after me, and I'm a bit like Robin Hood, and I have special knowledge, and I'm the only one who can save you, and I could tell you but then I'd have to shoot you..." Typically, you've failed to define 'corruption', but if it's a reflection that other people will make decisions that impact on your life without gaining your input (and may well advantage themselves) then it's hardly a surprise is it? Other people are not your mum and dad.

There are of course exceptions, and every one of us is one. I was more trying to consider the baby boomers as a social movement, a particular umbrella set of values and ambitions. Any individual will only share a few of those values, and in varying degrees. Hence a Get-out-of-jail-free card for us all. The delusions of youth are of course partly the product of a society created by the baby-boomers, and partly their age. Their education was crippled by the baby boomers who voted for lower taxation, lower educational investment, low paid teachers and sold the playing fields to the superstores....

I think if you want to refer my back to my OP you'll have to do that properly. I certainly didn't deny that corruption doesn't exist because I can't see it, and consequently have no obligation to prove it. Your straw man once again. I asserted that 'rampant corruption' was hyperbole in both a real and comparative sense. It leaves you bereft of language to express yourself when faced with real corruption. I wonder whether we differ in our definition of corruption? Yours would appear to describe the non disclosure of sensitive information as a 'cover-up', teamwork as 'collusion' and consultancy as 'bribery'. It's the language of the tabloids. The example of the Ian Tomlinson case demonstrates how unaccommodating our structures and society are to corruption. Your argument is quasi-religious: "I have decided that God/Corruption is omnipresent based on circumstantial evidence and wilful misinterpretation of the available information. This is a conviction based on faith. Unless you can prove he doesn't exist, he does. QED".

Ah well, we wouldn't expect the BBs to fall on their swords ;-) I think history will prove me right. But then that's a Bushism isn't it! It's mainly titting me off that climate change deniers, that the obstacles to financial reform, that the rapists of the public purse are all in their late fifties / early sixties and apparently motivated only by the desire to live in their fictitious wonderland at the expense of their fellow men and their planet. These gits demand respect for their elders while they systematically destroy our inheritance. It's not a catch-all, but the exceptions don't undermine the general conclusion.

You've resorted to calling me ignorant? How your friends must admire you. Your Ad Hominem comment pasted merrily over your own ruddy countenance methinks. I notice you've also resorted to fisking, and I'm intrigued to see that (compared with my ignorance) you consider that the highest form of debate. Your position is ridiculous by your own source: "a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false" You insist on the existence of corruption in the UK precisely because you have no evidence for it. You cite court cases and 'D' notices as if to impress the little ones in the playground (and then we discover 'D' notices are no more binding than a girly squeal). Once more, no evidence. If you have evidence of 'rampant' corruption ('extending unchecked or unrestrained and frequently or widely'), then really, where is it? Or are you just an old man with foil on his head going "woo woo" round the campfire? HAL9000, I'm sure you're a nice bloke. Really mate, take on someone more your own size.

I don't know where you're coming from HAL9000. If you're referring to my own views, I can assure you that corruption I've encountered is neither particularly secret, nor do successful practitioners always avoid prosecution. As for low exposure equating limited practice, hardly. Even so, what do you mean by exposure? You seem to be setting up straw men? Unless you can cite some of this massive corruption in the UK - perhaps putting Tony Blair in line with Bobert Mugabe and stealing half the country's GDP - I just don't have any 'control' sample apart from the ravings of paranoiacs.

A man on his way home from the pub decides to take a short-cut through an unlit park. A woman approaches him and offers to fuck his brains out for ?5. The man thinks to himself that this is a chance too good to miss, so hands over the ?5. She leads him into a bush and they get under way. A policeman happens to pass by, hears them at it and notices the bush shaking. He approaches, shines his torch on the pair and asks the man what he's doing. The man replies calmly, "I'm just having sex with my wife, officer. Do you mind?" The officer responds, "I'm sorry, sir, I didn't realise it was your wife." The man quickly replies, "That's quite alright, officer - until you shone your torch on her face, neither did I.

Oh to be 27 again. ;-)

I think I was probably one of the first chaps to post on this esteemed forum. I believe at the time (Oct/Nov 2006) Admin invented a few people for me to talk to so I wasn't lonely. However, I'd just got back from 18 months in Beijing, so frankly I didn't care if I was talking to a computer, so long as it was in English. Since then, if the data on the homepage menu is correct, we've had... 1,014 days of forum activity 318,822 posts 314 posts per day 13 posts per hour 1 post every 4mins and 35 seconds It would be great to know (as far as records and Google Analytics show).... Total unique users Total registered users Total regular users (i.e. those who've posted say in the last month) Users by country It's only for fun of course, what chance all that?