Penguin68

General Auctions or try Ebay

I had to go into FHRGP today to arrange an appointment - I had been asked to attend (by text) a routine (but face-to-face) medication review, with a link to booking, but there were no appointments available- of course. The staff there (the surgery was, of course completely empty for after 10.00 o'clock on a weekday) were, in the end, very helpful, but both were new (to me) and one was clearly very new as her colleague was taking her through the IT system very carefully. So, if you do come across slow and struggling staff, be aware that they are new and in-training and cut them some slack. If they are recruiting front-office staff - that's a good thing, and on the job training is fine. [The first available appointment was in 22 days time - but it wasn't urgent!]

That won't last past the election, though, will it?

To be fair, we have to rely on his own statements I believe that he has abandoned Marxism. Certainly we can see in his actions that he hasn't reached a 'withering away of the state' position, since he's still sold on untramelled state action, as regards the state he apparently wants to control.

Just to note that the phlebotomists must have a form (with tear-out elements) which they then affix to the vials which are sent to Kings for analysis. Without the form the results can't be linked to patient records. The forms are issued by GP surgeries - the phlebotomists are an outplaced NHS department of Kings. I am not sure that private consultants can use the service - if if was an NHS Consultant then he/ she should still have provided a necessary form for the phlebotomists to use - but I believe that King's consultants can book a session on-line, but normally I think with the in-house Kings department. Without the necessary paperwork the phlebotomists in TJ cannot process the blood. This was unfortunate, but I'm afraid it may reflect more poor instructions and advice from the consultant than any malice or even incompetence from the Kings Phlebotomy Department at TJ. The Swiftqueue booking system is only part of the process, the correct paperwork from the medical practitioner is a necessary part as well. Which of course does not make it any better for the patient.

Actually, I think first thing he was welcomed on the forum - it was only later that things got tougher for him. Some at least of it self inflicted.

The average UK patient load per GP, which is acknowledged to be too high, is now 2,300, which suggests that the surgery should have a little over 6 FTE fully qualified GPs on its books. In order to meet what is seen as an over-loaded average. Anyone know what their actual FTE strength is? For permanent staff. Remembering that a lot of staff are now part-time in General Practice. Edited to add current reports suggest nearly 90% of GPs are part-timers.

Whilst I have no brief for this practice I believe it was an existing practice, which was physically close to the Centre which transferred into it, so it may have been logistics and proximity rather than any business preference which drove the decision. It seems clear that the service, and I use that word quite wrongly, that they offer is derisory and shameful.

As far as I know, no. At the best if you signed up now you might, once you've got the sticker, be able to get collections before the start of April 2024, assuming you weren't already subscribing, as the sticker shows only an end date, I believe. It's a tad misleading, if you ask me, as it is of no benefit to sign up early if you are already signed up for the current year.

I'm afraid it is quite likely that this state of affairs will exacerbate, as more secondary schools are forced to close with falling school rolls meaning that more children will have to travel further, and are more likely therefore to get parental lifts. Particularly if bus services are truncated or made less frequent with TFL under increasing financial pressures and with the lack of interest in transport South of the River very apparent in City Hall. Additionally even 25 years or so ago children travelling by bus to my children's school were on occasion attacked by children attending a rival school which shared a bus route - teenage (and younger) violence has hardly dissipated (indeed it's grown) over that time. Which also drives parental lift giving. Better a car to school than an ambulance home.

Please do try reading what I've written before you leap into criticism - I acknowledged that it wasn't the Council that determined to use misleading statistics (by presenting a column of figures which was entitled 'Percentage Change' - two of which were year-on-year figures and one of which was as a percentage of the total bill) - without in any way explaining that these apparently comparable figures were reached differently, but Parliament. It doesn't stop those figures being misleading. I then went on to point out, that in my view is was a good thing to increase expenditure significantly on Adult Social Care and to hide this was a mistake, forced on the Council by Parliament. I didn't attribute any 'motive' because the cause of the Council's actions was made entirely clear by ianr in the extracts he quoted, for which, again, I am grateful. Clearly you do not understand that to say 'Percentage change' implying (and the figures support this) year-on-year within that category for two-thirds of the categories listed - when, in one case, it's not that but Percentage of the whole bill is misleading. The figures are not derived in the same way. For taxes raised by the London Borough of Southwark as a whole, and the taxes raised by the GLA you find the percentage increase by dividing the difference between last year's and this year's precept into the last year's figure, and multiplying by 100. Doing that reaches the same figures as shown on the bill. If you do that for the third figure you get not the 2% shown on the bill, but 23.9%. If you do not understand why that is 'wrong' then perhaps you might want to brush up on how to present figures properly. [NB a footnote to confirm the figures were derived differently would have been acceptable]

Thank you, ianr, for this clarification. I am amazed, personally, that councils are encouraged/ required to present confusing information (the other %age increases are of that category, year-on-year, and not as a % of the overall tax bill) - it is very poor policy, in my view, to present data which is confusing (derived differently) without a clear gloss and commentary. And, frankly, it is, again in my opinion, a good news story that more of our money is diverted to Adult Social Care, as a %age of previous spend, which has been derisory. 'We are planning to spend almost a quarter more next year than this on Adult Social Care' is a good news story, considering what else the council spends money on. And (just for the record) presenting statistical material intentionally in a confusing and inconsistent manner without further gloss is a lie, whoever (Council or Parliament) is the author of it. Perhaps a well-meaning lie, but a lie none-the-less. And it makes assumptions about the statistical abilities of rate payers to 'notice' something is odd (or rather, in the main not to notice) which is saddening.

I started this thread because of the large %age increase asked by the Mayor - 8.9% against Southwark's 4.99% (giving a 5.9% total) - however I am also concerned that Southwark appears to be hiding its 23.9% increase on Adult Social Care Costs, reporting it as a very modest 2%. I absolutely recognise that more needs to be, and is being, spent on Adult Social care - but why the obfuscation (for those of you too sensitive to accept my initial description of 'lie'?).

Just received the Southwark Council tax bill - up by 5.9% overall, but Southwark's costs have apparently increased by 2% for Adult Social care (but see below) and only 3% for the rest of their activity (an apparent net 2.78% increase) - what drives it, apparently, over the 5% is an 8.6% increase by the GLA - no doubt the Mayor's vanity projects such as ULEZ expansion. On the Roads and Transport thread there is a discussion about increases in Southwark's discretionary charges but we shouldn't let the Mayor escape our interest - and he doesn't seem to have to operate on the 5% cap imposed by Central Government on local authorities. [However, if I work through the council's own figures as presented in my bill, the actual overall increase shown against each category - Social care, other Southwark and GLA - is only 4.31% - I could not see, on the figures presented, where the 5.9% came from - although my bill for next year is indeed 5.9% greater than this year. In fact, going back to last year's bill - I have discovered that the Southwark figures as presented are a lie - the adult social care contribution in my Council tax has actually increased not by the declared 2% but actually by 23.9%. The actual net increase for Southwark - ON THEIR OWN FIGURES as presented in this and next year's council tax bill is 5% - hiked to 5.9% by the Mayor's greedy 8.6%. What I don't understand (but I suppose it may be an error and not an intentional lie) is why the adult social care increase should be understated by a factor of 10!. I do understand, and would indeed applaud, additional expenditure on Adult Social Care, I just don't agree that it should be hidden in the figures, and indeed a false %age increase declared]. Edited to add - I have based these percentages on the actual figures I had this March and last for my band of council tax. As I'm sure there are roundings I accept that the apportionment across each band - and %ages will have been rounded - won't be quite the 'overall' percentage quoted by the Council, but the disparity between a 2% increase and a 23.9% increase is not a rounding error. The absolute totals of my band's allocation - over 3 headings - do match the council figures.

And pumping it straight back out into the rivers...

The problem they face is that some types of charge can only actually be levied to meet costs, not for revenue generation - so if they admitted the truth they would possibly be penalised, or the charges disallowed. They are between a rock and a hard place - but of course by lying and dissimulating (when you might argue they 'have to') they allow that mind-set to take-over how they generally treat us - so lying and dissimulation becomes their default. As we have seen.

These are also available on line for next day delivery.

Unless you have been told not to, I would suggest sex and ethnicity may also be worth collecting for this survey for analysis - health and deprivation issues may be linked to these variables, and at least collecting them will allow you to analyse this. As might household income (in bands). Age and housing, which you have chosen, are both good variables however. Unless you are using other data collection methods you should note that this is a self selecting (not random) sample, and that it will be skewed potentially as it is drawn from what may be a self-limiting population (those registered on this board). Which will include those not living locally in SE London. Properly speaking, in order to have any significance, you will probably need populations of 100+ in each analysis 'box'. So, if breaking down by sex, a sample of 200 (100 men and 100 women) - but if breaking down by your 5 age groups a sample of 500. However, even if you don't achieve that, your research design is important and acknowledging that particular sets of analysis may have too small a sample size to be significant shows that you understand the limitations of what you are doing. I wish you luck

Openreach is a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group but is obliged under regulation to act even-handedly with BT UK and all other of its wholesale customers - that is that all companies supplying services through the Openreach local Network must be treated similarly - so BT Retail has no better, or hopefully worse, access to Openreach as does any other competing company. Openreach has 'passed' much of East Dulwich with fibre to the premises (FTTP) capability. BT is rebranding all its Retail services to 'EE' (that is, services to private/ residential customers) and I believe to SMEs as well. It is keeping the BT brand as a marketing name for its Major Business business. The maximum speed for FTTC (fibre to the cabinet) services is about 60-70MG to the household router - which is described I believe by some estate agents as superfast, curiously. The real FTTP services in ED are at the moment 500 or 1000MG to the router, and broadly achieve quite close to that, although speeds to the apparatus via WiFi are much less. To get actual benefit of the fibre speed you will need an ethernet network internally.

As the meat samosa will be more expensive (they normally seem to be) than the veggie option - so long as you were not charged for the meat samosa then it does seem an honest (if annoying) mistake. Indeed it is plausible that another punter was irked to receive veggie samosas in place of the meat ones they had ordered!

It is always possible to PM a poster (ideally one who is a regular poster, or one who has posted over some time) who is recommending (or not) a tradesman to ask for more details. That may give you a better view about that review and how much you should 'follow' it. The information available from the site (particularly number and range of posts and how long a poster has been registered) is very useful in judging a recommendation's utility

Possibly because BT already now passes most of us with fibre, and the business community is not sufficiently large to offer pickings there. Build outs are expensive and need a good weight of customers.

Your router should have a port on the back, along with the ethernet ports, which might be marked phone or just look slightly different, perhaps with a different coloured surround, and your phone should be able to plug into it. If you have a master phone with slaves plug the master phone in. All the phones will need to be mains powered, but they then should all work wirelessly with each other. Your land-line number should have been switched into your fibre set-up (it may take 24 to 48 hours for that to come through) - that will happen when your copper cable goes dead.

Back in the 1970s it was possible to buy council debt (fixed term bonds) sometimes for specific purposes, such as house building- this seems to follow a similar course, but avoiding the City costs of raising money - but also not backed by any collateral. The devil is in the detail, but the key question that needs to be asked is in what order creditors would be paid in the case of bankruptcy or the council equivalent. Calling it 'crowd funding' might suggest pretty low down that order. The suggested return again - when will that be paid? The later, the more risky. (My council bonds paid out at the end of the bond period, if I recall). It appears from the attached link that it may be paid out annually (good) and it may be possible to set it up within an ISA wrapper (assuming you have remaining ISA headroom this tax year). Which is also good. But the suggestion that Councils have by law to have balanced budgets is theoretically true, but in practice in many recent cases hasn't happened. So they could still default on the capital invested, which won't be paid out until the end of the term. My council bonds could be traded, but I suspect that will not be true of this investment - in which case you must be sure you can do without the capital sum for the investment term. Unless you are just punting a few pounds you could afford to lose I would strongly suggest getting professional financial advice before entering this market

Most of what councils do are not 'business' - the problems often arise when they enter into the business space - so renting out space in the parks to raise money must be handled as a business, with proper contracts which ensure that the 'owners' rights are protected. Council's are not staffed or trained to be entrepreneurial, but they are acting as entrepreneurs when they rent out public space. They need contracts which specify clearly, for instance who pays for remedial/ tidying work after an event (the event 'owners') - how quickly the event owners must restore and quit the site and so on. I suspect that they do not use dedicated event lawyers or event managers to ensure that their (our) best interests are contractually served, relying on in-house people. But (if they do) they are relying on people not expert in 'business' issues. I do not feel, when we come across the annual commercial park event season, that it is us, the 'owners' of the space, who are coming out best (or even, even) in these deals. This is an entirely different business model from letting local charities and event holders use public space for a local fair or fund raiser, and needs different specialists to set terms, conditions and penalties for non compliance. So, absolutely yes, Councils are not businesses, but there are clearly times when not to act like one is to betray their electors. They will have volunteer first aiders, for instance, but I expect them to employ qualified doctors for their occupational health service (which I'm sure they also have). They should employ lawyers (if they don't) skilled in business law, and managers skilled in entrepreneurial issues when they let our property to commercial enterprises working for profit.