PDA

View Full Version : Give him a medal, services to the community



Bolton Midnight
4th October 2011, 18:04
BBC News - Ian Huntley: Prisoner admits attacking Soham killer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15163465)

Knock-on
4th October 2011, 18:21
Yep, a deranged criminal serving life in prison for Armed Robbery should get a medal for murdering another convict and attempting to murder another.

Perhaps the keys to the City as well?

Bolton Midnight
4th October 2011, 18:33
Armed blagger > Beast

any day of the week

Knock-on
4th October 2011, 20:13
Armed blagger <> beast

Neither thanks

Knock-on
4th October 2011, 20:17
Actually, it should be encouraged across the board.

Only if you're including this board. I know a couple of little scroats who need a good seeing to ;)

Bolton Midnight
4th October 2011, 21:33
Actually, it should be encouraged across the board. Think of the tax savings because of the reduction in cost as prison populations shrink. Then we can expand the program to legislative bodies with a resulting orders of magnitude savings in government spending. Why didn't someone think of this before?

Would save a fortune if every nonce's cell came complete with its own cut throat razor.

markabilly
8th October 2011, 22:58
Actually, it should be encouraged across the board. Think of the tax savings because of the reduction in cost as prison populations shrink. Then we can expand the program to legislative bodies with a resulting orders of magnitude savings in government spending. Why didn't someone think of this before?

It would cause a massive depression (not the emotional kind) in many areas as prision running is the major industry keeping people in jobs. And after while we would not need guards, then the cops would get laid off cause no criminals to arrest, lawyers would have to start doing honest work to make a living (like selling used cars), and then the chinese could not sell us crap we don't need and as a result, they not have the money to buy US treasuries, the bond market would then crash, the Federal reserve would go bust.......

Stupid idea. People say crime does not pay. I say BS........................................tthink of all those people not getting paid, if crime don't pay.

Therefore, I say be patriotic, go forth and steal. The insurance will buy the victim new stuff, cops got something to do....etc and etc.....all stimulating the economy

Bolton Midnight
9th October 2011, 04:30
Still plenty of scope to sack 50% of the public sector involved with crime and nobody would notice a blind bit of difference, well not strictly true we'd notice the reduction in tax and the non jobs would have to actually get a real job.

ArrowsFA1
9th October 2011, 17:25
Still plenty of scope to sack 50% of the public sector involved with crime...
You wouldn't perhaps care to provide evidence for this astounding statistic?

Bolton Midnight
10th October 2011, 01:30
You wouldn't perhaps care to provide evidence for this astounding statistic?

Watched a thing on Strangeways a bit back, everyone was a manager of some sort, they were nurses and security guards not some fancy job title. Didn't warrant much more than min wage yet they would have all been on 30k plus. Any job title that includes 'diversity' could go and nobody would notice in the slightest.

Taxpayer's money is being spunked away on a huge scale post 97 thankfully something is being done about it but nowhere near enough.

Massive amounts of job losses and huge pay cuts for the public sector are the only way out of this mess.

ArrowsFA1
10th October 2011, 09:22
So absolutely no evidence to support your claim that there's "Still plenty of scope to sack 50% of the public sector involved with crime..." Just your opinion formed from a tv programme you watched a while ago.

Thanks.

Bolton Midnight
10th October 2011, 14:10
Okay have you any evidence to prove that 100% of them are needed and society as we know it would collapse if they weren't there?

No, thought not!

Have a look at taxpayers alliance website if you want to know the size of the waste or the Guardian's job pages.

You haven't a clue have you?

ArrowsFA1
10th October 2011, 14:33
Okay have you any evidence to prove that 100% of them are needed and society as we know it would collapse if they weren't there?

No, thought not!

Have a look at taxpayers alliance website if you want to know the size of the waste or the Guardian's job pages.

You haven't a clue have you?
Bolton Midnight, there's no need to be insulting and evasive. You were simply asked to provide evidence of your claim that there is "still plenty of scope to sack 50% of the public sector involved with crime".

Clearly you cannot do so. Nor can I provide evidence that "100% of them are needed and society as we know it would collapse if they weren't there", but then again I didn't make that claim. You created it as an evasion.

I'm well aware of the 'Taxpayers Alliance' which claims (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310902/Britain-import-tactics-U-S-Tea-Party-movement-protest-tax-hikes.html) to have around 55,000 members (there are 25m+ income tax payers in the UK so it's not exactly representative). It's a right-wing pressure group that campaigns for lower taxes and smaller government. The TA has had a blog (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste) reporting on what it considers "non-jobs" for some time.

Bolton Midnight
10th October 2011, 16:23
Bolton Midnight, there's no need to be insulting and evasive. You were simply asked to provide evidence of your claim that there is "still plenty of scope to sack 50% of the public sector involved with crime".

Clearly you cannot do so. Nor can I provide evidence that "100% of them are needed and society as we know it would collapse if they weren't there", but then again I didn't make that claim. You created it as an evasion.

I'm well aware of the 'Taxpayers Alliance' which claims (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310902/Britain-import-tactics-U-S-Tea-Party-movement-protest-tax-hikes.html) to have around 55,000 members (there are 25m+ income tax payers in the UK so it's not exactly representative). It's a right-wing pressure group that campaigns for lower taxes and smaller government. The TA has had a blog (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste) reporting on what it considers "non-jobs" for some time.

Do you folk need a link to prove night follows day?

Yoga in prison | Campaign | The TaxPayers' Alliance (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaign/2010/07/yoga-in-prison.html)

BBC News - London Tube 5% pay offer 'best in public sector' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15149806)

Granted not prison staff but it's all very much the same throughout the parasite sector

If I say X is true unless you can show it isn't then why question it?

Billions are being wasted on the public sector parasites and it is high time things were done about it, thank god we have a decent government now in power who will go some way to redress the balance but nowhere near enough.

ArrowsFA1
10th October 2011, 17:14
So a Sun story (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3058955/Prison-hires-a-yoga-guru-to-teach-violent-lags-how-to-relax.html) and a BBC report saying Unions have "begun discussions" about a pay deal is evidence that there is "scope to sack 50% of the public sector involved with crime" and that "billions are being wasted on the public sector parasites"?

Perhaps that link to prove night follows day would be an easier task :p

Sorry, Bolton but I'm more than a little tired of this government and their friends creating banner headlines and shouting them loudly and as often as they can as if that makes them fact.

I have no doubt that savings can, and will, be made in the public sector, but to describe people in the public sector as "parasites" and suggest that 50% could be cut with barely a blip might get you a cheer at the Tory party conference, but does nothing more than that.

Bolton Midnight
10th October 2011, 17:50
So a Sun story (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3058955/Prison-hires-a-yoga-guru-to-teach-violent-lags-how-to-relax.html) and a BBC report saying Unions have "begun discussions" about a pay deal is evidence that there is "scope to sack 50% of the public sector involved with crime" and that "billions are being wasted on the public sector parasites"?

Perhaps that link to prove night follows day would be an easier task :p

Sorry, Bolton but I'm more than a little tired of this government and their friends creating banner headlines and shouting them loudly and as often as they can as if that makes them fact.

I have no doubt that savings can, and will, be made in the public sector, but to describe people in the public sector as "parasites" and suggest that 50% could be cut with barely a blip might get you a cheer at the Tory party conference, but does nothing more than that.

So ask for a quote and then grizzle about it when it doesn't suit your stance!

The proof is in history, did the UK manage to function pre 97? A simple yes will suffice, we had better services but a lot less staff and costs. If the UK did not operate successfully pre 97 then you are correct, but it did so you are so very wrong.

Malbec
10th October 2011, 18:00
The proof is in history, did the UK manage to function pre 97? A simple yes will suffice, we had better services but a lot less staff and costs.

Utter nonsense.

I hate what Labour did to the NHS but even I will admit that in terms of the quality and quantity of services delivered we'll remember the period between '01 and '08 as being a golden age.

Bolton Midnight
10th October 2011, 18:11
And how many ops were carried out by diversity managers and HSE exec exactly?

UK NHS is the 4th biggest employer in the world FFS it needs some serious pruning, well when I say pruning I meant lopping.

The NHS pre Labour was the envy of the world, not any more it ain't. It has become bloated and infective.

Malbec
10th October 2011, 18:20
And how many ops were carried out by diversity managers and HSE exec exactly?

Tell me about the quality control mechanisms pre-2000? There were none. Tell me about the introduction of clinical governance, announced by the Tories at the end of their time but introduced under Labour and the effect it has had on the quality of healthcare? Tell me about organisations such as the MHRA and CQC that monitor equipment or clinical failures throughout the NHS and what equivalents there were pre-2000?

What about the hours worked by junior doctors, in excess of 100 hours per week for about £2-50 an hour pre'97. They now work less than 50 hours with better supervision resulting in fewer errors.

You seem old enough to remember what waiting lists were like pre-2000. Remember 6 month waiting lists for hips or 8 hour waits in A/E? A month to see a specialist for possible tumours? What are those waiting lists like now?


UK NHS is the 4th biggest employer in the world FFS it needs some serious pruning, well when I say pruning I meant lopping.

Under the Tories pre-'97 the NHS was the third biggest employer behind the People's Liberation Army and Indian State Railways. Now its fourth according to you, surely its going in the right direction.


The NHS pre Labour was the envy of the world, not any more it ain't. It has become bloated and infective.

I guess it is if you read the Daily Mail.

Problem for you is that the NHS is actually used as a policy beacon for many countries. A lot of countries use NICE guidelines (Labour invention) to decide what new treatment methods to use, if NICE accept it so do they. A friend of mine is in discussion with the Thai government who want to adopt the British GP system for their country, must be because its such a failure. I could go on about other ways in which the NHS and its systems have been used as a model for other countries.

You have very little idea how the NHS works and how it compares to other systems or what it was like pre-'97.

ArrowsFA1
10th October 2011, 22:48
So ask for a quote and then grizzle about it when it doesn't suit your stance!
When did I ask you for a quote? I asked you for evidence. A quote from the Sun is not evidence.

Bolton Midnight
11th October 2011, 02:23
When did I ask you for a quote? I asked you for evidence. A quote from the Sun is not evidence.

So what does count for evidence then? things worked fine pre 97 is that evidence enough for you? Let me guess you have vested interest in public sector types being paid way too much?

Bolton Midnight
11th October 2011, 02:33
Tell me about the quality control mechanisms pre-2000? There were none. Tell me about the introduction of clinical governance, announced by the Tories at the end of their time but introduced under Labour and the effect it has had on the quality of healthcare? Tell me about organisations such as the MHRA and CQC that monitor equipment or clinical failures throughout the NHS and what equivalents there were pre-2000?

What about the hours worked by junior doctors, in excess of 100 hours per week for about £2-50 an hour pre'97. They now work less than 50 hours with better supervision resulting in fewer errors.

You seem old enough to remember what waiting lists were like pre-2000. Remember 6 month waiting lists for hips or 8 hour waits in A/E? A month to see a specialist for possible tumours? What are those waiting lists like now?



Under the Tories pre-'97 the NHS was the third biggest employer behind the People's Liberation Army and Indian State Railways. Now its fourth according to you, surely its going in the right direction.



I guess it is if you read the Daily Mail.

Problem for you is that the NHS is actually used as a policy beacon for many countries. A lot of countries use NICE guidelines (Labour invention) to decide what new treatment methods to use, if NICE accept it so do they. A friend of mine is in discussion with the Thai government who want to adopt the British GP system for their country, must be because its such a failure. I could go on about other ways in which the NHS and its systems have been used as a model for other countries.

You have very little idea how the NHS works and how it compares to other systems or what it was like pre-'97.

Wow the daisy chain iked this post didn't they?

MRSA don't recall that being big under the Tories, or duff IT projects that cost the taxpayers millions and aren't fit for purpose.

And you skipped the bit re diversity managers, what use are they? Or the bits of art in place within hospitals, or the corrupt financing of hospital builds, how about that?

My brother in law was one of those junior doctors and he was asleep part of his shift, £2.50 an hour to sleep is pretty reasonable I think.

8 hrs in A&E was very much a Labour thing and it has got worse, my wife and daughter spent 24hrs being seen, 8 hrs would be a vast improvement.

Reduced waiting list for certain ops bigger for others, no improvement unless you need a new hip. Dementia patients denied drugs because they are too costly yet heaps of non medical staff on 6 figure salaries. friggin stinks.

Have you proof it was 3rd biggest as all I've ever heard was 4th, please prove it with figures for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th just to make sure it wasn't them shrinking rather than the bloated over paid under worked NHS.

I work within the remit of the NHS and I see waste every day. Esp by non medical staff who just are not needed, Guardian reading parasites that they are.

Shooting is too good for them, tax thieves.

ArrowsFA1
11th October 2011, 09:29
So what does count for evidence then? things worked fine pre 97 is that evidence enough for you?
"Things worked fine pre 97" is a very unspecific claim or opinion. Rather like that Sun article you like so much (via the Tax Alliance), which was written to fan the flames of outrage.

It says a prison is "hiring a yoga guru to teach violent lags how to relax.
Taxpayers are forking out for murderers to learn "Taoist meditation breath work" and "flowing stretches". Angry now? Waste of taxpayers money? Job done. On to page 3.

If you care to read a little further you'll see a comment from the Prison Service that says ""Activities like yoga have a role to play in engaging prisoners in education programmes and those aimed at reducing re-offending."

Re-offending rates are a key issue, and anything that reduces crime and therefore the prison population is a good thing isn't it? Ultimately it will reduce the amount of taxpayers money being used.

Bolton Midnight
11th October 2011, 10:38
The idea is to punish them as well, all this tax funded fun isn't punishment is it? Plus more people re-offend now with all this namby pamby Liberal crap than they were before it, so it clearly is a waste of hard working people's money so needs stopping.

Maybe to you it is unspecific but that doesn't stop it being true, if we managed with a lot less public sector bods then we'll manage once they have gone. QED.

Malbec
11th October 2011, 11:56
MRSA don't recall that being big under the Tories, or duff IT projects that cost the taxpayers millions and aren't fit for purpose.

Look into MRSA BM, it only popped up in the mid-90s as a problem and got picked up by the media around 2000. Happened under Labour but also got cut down under Labour. So?

Duff IT projects? There are plenty of those and one of Labour's biggest mistakes was to waste £25 billion on the NHS spine. Other projects worked like the digitalisation of radiology systems nationwide.

This is a difficult concept for some people to comprehend but BOTH parties have done a lot of good and bad to the NHS. Whether its lefties unable to comprehend that the Labour party privatised the most attractive parts of the NHS years ago or rightists like you unable to comprehend that the Labour reforms did a lot of good (and harm) you clearly need to have things simplified for you to understand.


And you skipped the bit re diversity managers, what use are they?

Never met one myself but by law every large organisation has to have one. And lets remember that the NHS until recently used to think it was normal to screen applicants for jobs who had 'funny names'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1677082/pdf/bmj00011-0031.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126820/pdf/9186179.pdf

and where bullying was common as long as physical violence wasn't used.


Or the bits of art in place within hospitals,

The artwork is nice isn't it? Its mostly for sale btw, the hospitals I've worked at will happily show your artwork but will charge a commission for every one sold. They're usually very flexible on fees and the profits go straight into clinical care. Why, are you an artist?


or the corrupt financing of hospital builds, how about that?

Are you talking about PFIs? Surely you'd be glad that the private sector was building things for the NHS. You should be doubly proud as it was a Tory idea in the first place with your heroine Maggie Thatcher going to stay in one a few times herself recently. Is some of it corrupt? Probably. The whole issue is very complicated with a lot of pros and cons that I don't expect you to comprehend.


My brother in law was one of those junior doctors and he was asleep part of his shift, £2.50 an hour to sleep is pretty reasonable I think.

Good, so he can tell you how safe he was working an 85 hour weekend with about 5 hours sleep, and how few mistakes he made can't he. In fact he should be able to set you straight on quite a few other issues.


8 hrs in A&E was very much a Labour thing and it has got worse, my wife and daughter spent 24hrs being seen, 8 hrs would be a vast improvement.

This is where your delusion becomes clear. 8 hour waits were the norm since the 70's. Ever heard of the A/E 4 hour waiting rule introduced in 2002?

Four-hour target in emergency departments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-hour_target_in_emergency_departments)

If you waited for 24 hours as you claim firstly I hope you complained directly to PALS as in this day and age you would have been headline news and the hospital you went to would have been hit with a massive fine.

But then again you've not heard of the 2 week rule for cancer, 6 week rule for diagnostic tests etc etc.


Reduced waiting list for certain ops bigger for others, no improvement unless you need a new hip.

Actually waiting lists have gone down across the board but don't let that stop you. You're right though that waiting lists without targets have gone down less than those with one.


Have you proof it was 3rd biggest as all I've ever heard was 4th, please prove it with figures for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th just to make sure it wasn't them shrinking rather than the bloated over paid under worked NHS.

NHS is world's biggest employer after Indian rail and Chinese Army - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1050197.ece)


I work within the remit of the NHS and I see waste every day. Esp by non medical staff who just are not needed, Guardian reading parasites that they are.

Shooting is too good for them, tax thieves.

There is waste everywhere including the NHS. I suspect you feel many of those staff are not needed because you do not comprehend what they do. In these days of 10% budget cuts staff that can't justify their job are being cut out whether they are clinical or non-clinical.

ArrowsFA1
11th October 2011, 12:34
The idea is to punish them as well...
Very true. That's why they're in prison.


...all this tax funded fun isn't punishment is it?
This kind of programme is not entertainment, or fun as you call it. It's part of an education programme aimed at reducing re-offending and is a part of the offenders time in prison.


Plus more people re-offend now with all this namby pamby Liberal crap than they were before it...
Really? Yes, re-offending rates are high (around 70% is a figure I've seen (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/04/jail-less-effective-community-service)) but higher than when exactly?


...so it clearly is a waste of hard working people's money so needs stopping.
"Clearly" would suggest you've provided something more than the usual "namby pamby Liberal crap" to allow us to judge, but again you haven't.

Dave B
12th October 2011, 17:39
I do wish people would stop wasting their time and effort on this wannabe Richard Littlejohn. He's got an entrenched and delusional opinion (as with so many subjects) which no amout of facts and evidence will ever change. The two posts above are both excellent, but I fear utterly lost on BM. His mind - such as it is - is already made up.

Captain VXR
12th October 2011, 19:14
This is when pc goes too far :D
klvCleuZ_Kg

Bolton Midnight
14th October 2011, 20:10
I'm sure both parties have done good and bad just under Labour more worse than good and at treble the price.

There are too many bureaucrats and it got a lot worse under Labour, all these non jobs they love so much, only a complete moron would not be able to see that, thousands of them could be sacked and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the efficiency of the NHS.

Bullying, FFS these are grown ups not kids in the playground, if they are so useless they get bullied then maybe they should rethink their career.

Utterly pointless art, and not sure how a mural on a wall can be for sale either.

PFis yes Tory idea totally ruined by clueless Labour. Hospital builds costing so many times more than they should have, how can that be good for the taxpayer?

He wasn't working an 85hr weekend (off that my weekend are only 48hrs tops) he was sleeping for a lot of it, yet getting paid.

Have never been seen in 4hrs or less at A&E nobody has, utter crap.

Hell of a lot less waste within private sector but hardly surprising as we live in the real world unlike pointless pen pushers within NHS.

Malbec
15th October 2011, 02:52
I'm sure both parties have done good and bad just under Labour more worse than good and at treble the price.

More worse than good? Without Labour there would be no NHS. Aneurin Bevin who established the NHS and had to fight Tory opposition hard to do so had this to say about his experiences:

"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."


There are too many bureaucrats and it got a lot worse under Labour, all these non jobs they love so much, only a complete moron would not be able to see that, thousands of them could be sacked and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the efficiency of the NHS.

Good on you for spotting that BM, identify them and make a killing as a management consultant for the NHS slashing costs by getting rid of unnecessary management. Don't waste time posting here, there's clearly money to be made so put your money where your mouth is.


Bullying, FFS these are grown ups not kids in the playground, if they are so useless they get bullied then maybe they should rethink their career.

When people don't get jobs because of their race then it goes a little further than bullying.


Utterly pointless art, and not sure how a mural on a wall can be for sale either.

Its not pointless if its profitable, seems you don't like that.


PFis yes Tory idea totally ruined by clueless Labour. Hospital builds costing so many times more than they should have, how can that be good for the taxpayer?

Expensive but also resulted in the biggest expansion and modernisation of hospital space in the history of the NHS. Pros and cons see?


He wasn't working an 85hr weekend (off that my weekend are only 48hrs tops) he was sleeping for a lot of it, yet getting paid.

Medical takes used to last from Friday morning 9am to late Monday evening which is about 85 hours.


Have never been seen in 4hrs or less at A&E nobody has, utter crap.

You claim to work for the NHS yet you've never heard of the 4 hour waiting rule and still insist that noone gets seen in less than that time.

Not very observant are you?

Total time spent in Accident and Emergency : Department of Health - Publications (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Statistics/Performancedataandstatistics/AccidentandEmergency/DH_079085)

The Tories have managed to keep up a >95% rate for A/E seeing patients within 4 hours, a requirement established by the Labour party. Did the Tories fabricate those stats?


Hell of a lot less waste within private sector but hardly surprising as we live in the real world unlike pointless pen pushers within NHS.

Ignorance is bliss.

The private system in the UK is massively subsidised by the existence of the NHS, even so they can't do routine ops like hip replacements as cheaply as the NHS can. So much for efficiency.

Malbec
15th October 2011, 11:35
I have never had the pleasure(?) of being treated within your system and, with luck, never will. However, a four hour wait to be seen is beyond unacceptable. Why do you put up with that kind if stuff?

Four hour wait is a bit of a misnomer.

The patient has to be seen and either treated and discharged home or admitted and sent to a ward within 4 hours, it doesn't mean that you have to wait four hours to be seen by a doctor. It doesn't discriminate between whether you have a broken finger nail or have had a heart attack and the clock starts ticking as soon as you clock in at reception or medical staff log you in if you're not capable of doing that.

In reality if you come in with a life threatening condition staff will drop everything and treat you, otherwise patients are prioritised in terms of clinical need.

Hospitals face stiff financial penalties if they don't hit this target and this is the kind of thing a chief exec can easily lose his job over for not sorting out. The picture that BM paints simply doesn't exist and neither do I trust the way the NHS is portrayed in the US as it is used as a political football there to suit various agendas.

This is why the link I posted to to the DoH website refers to 'total time spent in A/E', as it is this time that should be less than 4 hours.

Bolton Midnight
15th October 2011, 13:31
That was old Labour not Nu Labour as you well know.

No point the NHS don't want to be efficient, too many have a vested interest with their snouts firmly in the trough to really change. Take every politically correct non job outside and shoot them, be fr the good of the country, okay Guardian sales would drop but who cares?

Oh aye as of course there's no Jonny Foreigners within the NHS, Jesus Wept how daft can you be? The NHS wouldn't exist without immigrant workers so don't think it need diversity managers; it's very diverse and always has been.

I do work within the NHS not for, I work for myself. 4hr wait is irrelevant for what I do.

More fool you if you really believe that folk get sorted in 4hrs, tonight every A&E up and down the country folk will be waiting for a lot more than 4hrs. No doubt they count seeing the Triage nurse and then being referred to junior Doc as two separate visits.

Private sector pays for the NHS and all other public sector as of course public sector does not pay income tax they just take money out of the country they don't create wealth just leech off it.

Dave B
15th October 2011, 14:33
Have never been seen in 4hrs or less at A&E nobody has, utter crap.


I really can't be bothered to correct the numerous inaccuracies in your post, but this one stands out. It is, to put it bluntly, a lie. "Nobody has" been seen in 4 hours?

I have, for starters. A few years back I got taken in with internal bleeding - straight in, straight to a cubicle, straight to a doctor.

My dad, for another. Called 999 with chest pains, paramedics decided it probably wasn't a heart attack but took him in anyway where he was whisked straight through to a bed and a doctor.

Me again. 2001, I got a blood clot in my leg, a potentially fatal condition. Despite living right out in the sticks at the time, I was being seen by a doctor within half and hour of calling an ambulance.

My mate, for another example. Fell over on a wet floor. Funny as anything looking back, but scary at the time. I took him to the minor injuries unit at the local hospital and he left with his broken leg in plaster before my car park ticket had expired.

From my observations the people who are kept waiting are the ones who turn up with cosmetic injuries, broken bones, or ailments that really should have been taken to a pharmacist or their GP. In my experience if you have a serious or life-threatening condition it gets dealt with quickly and efficiently. There'll always be exceptions, and I'm sure you're now frantically Googling away for some old dear who died in a corridor, but the very fact that incidents like those make the headlines is because they're so rare.

As with any process which deals with thousands of people per hour they'll always be the occasional lapse, and that can obviously have serious consequences when you're dealing with peoples' lives. There's clearly room for improvement. But don't pretend that the whole system is broken because it happens to suit your political ideology. That is just a lie, pure and simple.

Bolton Midnight
15th October 2011, 15:14
I've no qualms making the drunks who have been fighting wait, but my wife needed to go on a drip whilst pregnant because she was constantly throwing up, both times over 5hr wait, daughter who couldn't walk yet no external injuries, took 24hrs two hospitals before she was released and prognosis - unknown.

Bloody hopeless

Of course folk have died in waiting rooms and corridors, no need to Google it as it is a well known fact. Not to mention those that die on waiting lists too.

I'm not saying it isn't worth having but it needs to be a lot more efficient, where is the harm in buying paper cheaper for the NHS or having less staff, but of course those with a vested interest resist progress. Gravy train a go go.

Mark
15th October 2011, 15:46
That's the thing though. Most of us thankfully only come into contact with the NHS on an infrequent basis. So we don't see enough to make a proper assesment of the situation. Bolton, I'm sure you had a terrible experience which isn't acceptable, but that doesn't mean it's ALL bad.

Bolton Midnight
15th October 2011, 16:03
It isn't all bad, but needs a lot of work doing to it.

Streamlining staff numbers/roles for starters, then there's the ludicrous pensions/pay deals some are on.

Was just reading a friend's facebook page, 6 hrs for a suspected broken finger on her 4 year old daughter, 4hrs my arse.

Malbec
15th October 2011, 16:39
No point the NHS don't want to be efficient, too many have a vested interest with their snouts firmly in the trough to really change.

Incorrect. All NHS trusts are under serious financial pressure. Chief execs and senior management are desperate to reduce costs, needless to say they face the sack if they don't. With the average life expectancy of a chief exec in their post being 4 years they get sacked on a regular basis. Yes, they have a vested interest in slashing costs to save their own skin.


Take every politically correct non job outside and shoot them, be fr the good of the country, okay Guardian sales would drop but who cares?

Define non-job.


Oh aye as of course there's no Jonny Foreigners within the NHS, Jesus Wept how daft can you be? The NHS wouldn't exist without immigrant workers so don't think it need diversity managers; it's very diverse and always has been.

Its not about having workers from all over the world, its about treating them equally. Is this really that hard to understand?


More fool you if you really believe that folk get sorted in 4hrs, tonight every A&E up and down the country folk will be waiting for a lot more than 4hrs. No doubt they count seeing the Triage nurse and then being referred to junior Doc as two separate visits.

I'm a radiology consultant at a large hospital. I've worked in A/E for several years during my training both as a surgeon and as a cas officer, before and after the 4 hour rule came in. Fool for me for believing my own experiences.

Fool for me too for believing intra-departmental audits and CQC inspection reports and evaluations from the DoH.

FYI the clock stops once you leave the department, not when you see particular people.

As I said, if your experiences are true you should have complained and sold your story to the Sun. As Dave B says, such stories are headline material because they are so rare.


Private sector pays for the NHS and all other public sector as of course public sector does not pay income tax they just take money out of the country they don't create wealth just leech off it.

I'm surprised to hear I don't pay income tax.... Can you get the Inland Revenue to pay me back what they owe me then?

Also the NHS commissions a lot of work off the private sector, it appears that you are one of those contractors. The irony of you then claiming that the NHS doesn't create wealth when you can't stop talking about how you work for it... Without the NHS commissioning work or supplies the private sector that relies on the NHS would fold. So much for not creating wealth.

Bolton Midnight
15th October 2011, 18:00
Nope they save costs to ensure their over inflated salaries are untouched. And when they leave they become consultants and charge the taxpayer stupid amounts for work that could easily be done by someone on 30k within private sector.

Do you not understand the words 'non job'? How strange. If it is non essential it is a non job, and essential does not include folk who just do stuff to justify their own existence. Is this really that hard to understand?

If anyone doesn't like the way they are treated they are free to leave are they not?

Yep journalists are far better than any internal checking office, lets sack those auditing things as they are useless and full of bull.

BBC News - Lancashire and Cumbria cancer patient treatment delays (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15321015)
see

Of course you don't pay tax, if the state gives you 100k gross and you give 40k back we the taxpayer are still 60k down, simple maths.

The bulk of my income is private work not NHS stuff.

Malbec
15th October 2011, 19:00
Yep journalists are far better than any internal checking office, lets sack those auditing things as they are useless and full of bull.

BBC News - Lancashire and Cumbria cancer patient treatment delays (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15321015)
see

Poor man, you're not even able to see that that links to a POSSIBLE delay and that it has nothing to do with A/E waiting times? Dearie me. I can see why the NHS has such problems if it contracts out work to the likes of you.

Bolton Midnight
15th October 2011, 23:15
No, just pointing out that as usual journos do a better job of keeping incompetent and lazy public sector types in check than any internal audits do.

But don't expect you to understand that, snout back in trough please.

Bolton Midnight
15th October 2011, 23:24
No, just pointing out that as usual journos do a better job of keeping incompetent and lazy public sector types in check than any internal audits do.

But don't expect you to understand that, snout back in trough please.

Rollo
15th October 2011, 23:36
Private sector pays for the NHS and all other public sector as of course public sector does not pay income tax they just take money out of the country they don't create wealth just leech off it.

Wealth is created through the production of goods and services. Healing and treating people who are unwell is a service, and quite a valuable one as well. The NHS main benefit to the economy is returning the productive labour force to work. How dare the private sector leech off of the NHS.

The whole theory that the government sector does not create wealth is spurious.

Bolton Midnight
15th October 2011, 23:55
If the NHS was so bloody wonderful then why are its own staff off sick so often? Laziness or are the just unhealthy?

Dave B
16th October 2011, 12:18
Was just reading a friend's facebook page, 6 hrs for a suspected broken finger on her 4 year old daughter, 4hrs my arse.

Even supposing her 6 hour figure is accurate, was a "suspected broken finger" a particularly good use of A&E time, or should she have gone to a minor-injuries clinic or walk-in centre? Part of the problem is ignorant people misusing (often entirely accidentally) the system.

Knock-on
16th October 2011, 12:28
It isn't all bad, but needs a lot of work doing to it.

Streamlining staff numbers/roles for starters, then there's the ludicrous pensions/pay deals some are on.

Was just reading a friend's facebook page, 6 hrs for a suspected broken finger on her 4 year old daughter, 4hrs my arse.

There have been some great improvements in A&E waiting times recently but there will always be exceptions. For example, there may have been a serious incident going on when she went. Who knows?

I have had cause to use A&E more than most with several visits for serious RTA's. In 1999 I was discharged after being brought in unconscious by ambulance and left in an abandoned Xray room after they thought because of my injuries, they should remove me from the bed in the corridor which I was on for about 5 hours with just a bottle of Nos. I had buggered legs and broken ribs but after being treated with a strong pain killer, I was sent home. I was carried back into A&E the next day where I was left on a bed again until my lung collapsed. I was pretty lucky someone noticed.

About 5 years ago, I had another accident with a gear change lever ripping open my calf and made it to A&E on my own steam. I was seen within 5 mins by a Triage nurse although it was quite busy and was being operated on with the first of about 8 operations within an hour of arriving at A&E.

I would say that is quite an improvement in service.

There is no doubt that there are areas where efficiency savings in the NHS can be found but to claim that the service, especially A&E is as bad as you do, is frankly silly.

Bolton Midnight
16th October 2011, 15:51
Even supposing her 6 hour figure is accurate, was a "suspected broken finger" a particularly good use of A&E time, or should she have gone to a minor-injuries clinic or walk-in centre? Part of the problem is ignorant people misusing (often entirely accidentally) the system.

If a child has trapped her finger in a door is screaming the place down where are parents meant to go?

6hrs is pretty well the norm at A&E 4hrs would be a miracle.

Bolton Midnight
16th October 2011, 15:53
There have been some great improvements in A&E waiting times recently but there will always be exceptions. For example, there may have been a serious incident going on when she went. Who knows?

I have had cause to use A&E more than most with several visits for serious RTA's. In 1999 I was discharged after being brought in unconscious by ambulance and left in an abandoned Xray room after they thought because of my injuries, they should remove me from the bed in the corridor which I was on for about 5 hours with just a bottle of Nos. I had buggered legs and broken ribs but after being treated with a strong pain killer, I was sent home. I was carried back into A&E the next day where I was left on a bed again until my lung collapsed. I was pretty lucky someone noticed.

About 5 years ago, I had another accident with a gear change lever ripping open my calf and made it to A&E on my own steam. I was seen within 5 mins by a Triage nurse although it was quite busy and was being operated on with the first of about 8 operations within an hour of arriving at A&E.

I would say that is quite an improvement in service.

There is no doubt that there are areas where efficiency savings in the NHS can be found but to claim that the service, especially A&E is as bad as you do, is frankly silly.

Hope they charged you for wasting their time, you should learn how to drive first.

Bolton Midnight
16th October 2011, 15:54
Well if everybody started being more punctual, you wouldn't get 'Porter of the Month' as often as you do. :D

ha ha

Guardianistas unite

you lot are so far out of touch its unreal, welcome to the real world

Bolton Midnight
16th October 2011, 16:11
Nobody other than those with a vested interest read the Guardian

Who reads the papers? - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC comedy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M)

was true back then and still is

Daily Mail is far more in touch with normal people than the Guardian will ever be.

The country has huge debts, cuts and bloody big ones are needed the main weakness of the Coalition is they aren't cutting deep enough and keep on U turning as they don't want to be seen as the nasty Tories cutting again.

The gravy train has ran out of fuel, the unemployable non jobs within the public sector need shooting.

Bolton Midnight
16th October 2011, 17:11
I don't read the Guardian so I can't agree or disagree with that, but I know the Daily Mail is a trashy tabloid with an agenda for bias more than most other papers. If you read the Star or the Mirror you know you are getting a trashy tabloid. What annoys me about the Daily Mail is the fact it poses as a serious paper for the middle classes, but delivers a quality of journalism that unwittingly puts itself below the obvious laughable ones.

So you read it then?

Daily Wail's problem is it is far too predictable, all they seem interested in is criminal immigrants and the like. Guardian is just as bad as the DM if not worse but with a left bias, read and quoted by clueless champagne socialists who usually have non essential yet well paid public sector jobs.

Littlejohn bitchslaps Toynbee - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSLUtfubOis)

Toynbee is typical Guardianista

Bolton Midnight
16th October 2011, 18:43
If you don't read it how can you slag it off? I do read the Guardian (on line version of course). And it always makes me chuckle when clueless know it alls believe it and then quote it online as all that proves is they are pillocks and blind to its blatant bias.

Mail > Guardian

But Telegraph is best of the lot as it tells it as it really is.

ArrowsFA1
16th October 2011, 19:17
"...You don't pay tax..."
"...the state gives you 100k..."
"We the taxpayer..."

This would be funny if it wasn't so deliberately divisive.

Knock-on
18th October 2011, 19:43
Hope they charged you for wasting their time, you should learn how to drive first.

As per normal, you fire off an opinion without clarifying the facts first. Why does that not surprise me?

First, you should have put Ride instead of Drive.

The first accident was when I was on a bike that was hit side on by a car doing in excess of 60mph and the 2nd was on a competition motoX bike where the rear wheel collapsed.

Of course, you would have done better I'm sure :rolleyes:

Bolton Midnight
19th October 2011, 14:52
Maybe its unlucky that the articles I do read just happen to be awful and written with the same agenda as when I used to read the paper years ago I don't know? One example I can give is a story written by them last year about someone I used to know. She gave an interview for their female section about the difficulties of having a child with Down's Syndrome and how to cope and be happy with what you have got. She did it after she was approached and assured her story would be accurately told which in hindsight may have been foolish. At no point did she make out she wished she'd never had her child and guess what the paper did to her story? It wasn't put in the female section and they slanted her point of view very differently to how she'd been interviewed. The article caused alot of distress and hatred was directed against her because of it. Here is the article if you are interested:

Is it MY fault one of my twins has Down's? A 39-year-old mother reveals why she regrets having IVF | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1257008/Is-MY-fault-twins-Downs-A-39-year-old-mother-reveals-regrets-having-IVF.html)

I have no respect for a publication who have little regard for people's lives as long as they sell papers. The author of the article is utter scum and reinforces why I wouldn't give you 50p for a copy if it was the only paper left on the shelf.

And you think the DM is the ONLY paper to misquote people to get a better story. Boy you are naive what colour is the sky in your world?


As per normal, you fire off an opinion without clarifying the facts first. Why does that not surprise me?

First, you should have put Ride instead of Drive.

The first accident was when I was on a bike that was hit side on by a car doing in excess of 60mph and the 2nd was on a competition motoX bike where the rear wheel collapsed.

Of course, you would have done better I'm sure :rolleyes:

Oh wow bike/car we really are clutching at straws now aren't we?

But of course I would.

Bolton Midnight
19th October 2011, 14:53
"...You don't pay tax..."
"...the state gives you 100k..."
"We the taxpayer..."

This would be funny if it wasn't so deliberately divisive.

Doesn't deter from the fact that public sector employees do NOT pay income tax. It is merely an adjustment in the cost to the taxpayer.

ArrowsFA1
19th October 2011, 15:42
Doesn't deter from the fact that public sector employees do NOT pay income tax. It is merely an adjustment in the cost to the taxpayer.
No Bolton, public sector employees pay income tax.

You simply don't like the fact (this is a real one) that they are employed by the state. This view of yours appears to be driven by an ideological objection to the public sector.

The fact (another real one) is that public sector employees are no different to any other employee in the eyes of HM Revenue & Customs. They earn income, are liable for tax, and so are taxpayers.

Bolton Midnight
19th October 2011, 16:45
No they don't, they just give some of the money the nation gives to them back, that is no hardship for them. It is rather pointless giving them 30k and then taking 10k back, be simpler to just give them 20k in the first place. Plus could be part of a new contract with more realistic pension contributions and a no strike deal. Not to mention the number of HMRC staff that could be laid off. So win win all round.

I have no issues with necessary public sector staff - police officers, nurses, bin men and the like but we do not need or can afford loads of self justifying pen pushers, they should have been sacked already.

A bloodbath budget is what the coalition should have come up with like they did in Canada - only way out of Labour's mess.

Why is it essential for local councils for example to have environmental staff, global warning isn't a concern of Hackney council, all they need to do is look after the parks, empty the bins and keep the libraries going. They have got way above their station since 97, delusions of grandeur.

Was reading lastnight about local council staff having a 'works credit card' and they have made cash withdrawals with no receipts / paper trials - why aren't they facing theft / fraud cases? Sack em, no redundancy etc and if they bleat lock em up.

ArrowsFA1
19th October 2011, 17:41
You must like chestnuts. Old ones. :p

Dave B
19th October 2011, 17:48
Was reading lastnight about local council staff having a 'works credit card' and they have made cash withdrawals with no receipts / paper trials - why aren't they facing theft / fraud cases? Sack em, no redundancy etc and if they bleat lock em up.
If there have been abuses then certainly staff should be disciplined and where necessary sacked; but used correctly staff credit cards actually save a lot of tedious admin in processing expenses - probably do away with a couple of jobs too! For all we know the cash withdrawals may* have been for small food or travel costs where the provider doesn't accept cards.

*I say "may" because, in common with you, I don't have all the facts. However where we differ is that I don't present speculation or hearsay as fact.

Bolton Midnight
19th October 2011, 17:57
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2011/10/town-hall-bosses-spending-credit-cards-revealed.html

If I haven't a paper trial for my spending I'd be fined, so why not these parasites too?

They are meant to serve the public not themselves!

Dave B
19th October 2011, 18:07
Again, if there's been abuse then they should be investigated. But it's perfectly normal for an expenses policy to specify an amount under which no receipt is necessary. In my previous (private sector, before you whinge) job I could claim up to £5 for lunch, car parking, short taxi trips and so on without a receipt. It was judged that the cost of administering such small amounts would be more than the potential risk of fraud. I thought you were all in favour of less admin?

As for the examples quoted in the link, I don't know the full circumstances. I suspect you don't either, but that's not stopping you...

However, I can quote one example of someone in my aquaintance that did a long haul trip in First Class rather than economy. The reason? Being able to sleep on a proper flatbed seat saved the company two nights in a hotel at the destination. The cost of the rooms alone more than offset the difference in fare, before you even began to take into account that this person was therefore away from base for less time. It's not always black and white.


PS:
Follow the article's link to the original Daily Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/8830578/Council-bosses-use-credit-cards-for-lavish-lifestyles.html) on which it's shamelessly based, and read some of the comments. It appears that there are some major flaws with the reporting, including some outright untruths. Just sayin'...

Bolton Midnight
19th October 2011, 18:20
They are being paid something like 180k FFS they are just Town Clerks, 30k tops is what they are worth, they won't be stella performers or anything just boring little paper clip counters.

They won't be sacked or investigated as snout in the trough is accepted as the norm.

Dave B
19th October 2011, 18:36
They are being paid something like 180k FFS they are just Town Clerks, 30k tops is what they are worth, they won't be stella performers or anything just boring little paper clip counters.

They won't be sacked or investigated as snout in the trough is accepted as the norm.

Still, good to see that you have, as ever, thoroughly countered the points I raised in my post. Good work.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 06:09
Still, good to see that you have, as ever, thoroughly countered the points I raised in my post. Good work.

Your post didn't have any point to it, it just seemed to be 'fraud and theft are okay with me and I don't mind my money being abused by the public sector'. I take it you are part of this bent gravy train?



Yeah of course I think the Daily Mail are the only paper to do that *rubs chin*. :dozey:

Naive and incorrect, well done you.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 08:53
You forgot sarcastic too.

So you agree then that the Guardian lies and is not worth quoting in a feeble attempt to back up lefty agendas, good glad we got that sorted.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 09:05
I realise I'm probably wasting my time, but could you explain how you read these two posts...


If there have been abuses then certainly staff should be disciplined and where necessary sacked...


Again, if there's been abuse then they should be investigated.

...and arrive at this conclusion:


Your post didn't have any point to it, it just seemed to be 'fraud and theft are okay with me and I don't mind my money being abused by the public sector'.

You're either lacking the most basic of comprehension skills, or you're wilfully ignoring points that don't fit in with your pre-conceived views. Either way it makes it impossible to hold a sensible debate with you. It's a pity, because although we clearly disagree on fundamental points it could have been interesting to thrash this out in an adult fashion. Never mind.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 09:11
For a normal thinking person there's little to debate. They have their snouts in our trough and should be sacked, charged and banged up in that order.

The fact they haven't already been looked into just proves how wrong things are with council finances.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 09:18
A link proves nowt, what is it with your obsession for links?

Get over it FFS

Dave B
20th October 2011, 09:21
So why were you using information from the Guardian if you don't agree with it? I only suggested you provide a link for your source, I didn't really care where it came from.

I find that links can be very revealing, if you follow where they in turn got their information. Like that Taxpayers Alliance report, for example, which turns out to be a flimsy re-write (some less charitable than me might say "rip-off") of a Daily Telegraph article which, in turn, uses some apparently flawed data. Sources are all well and good, but sometimes you have to do a little digging for the truth.

ArrowsFA1
20th October 2011, 09:37
...The fact they haven't already been looked into just proves how wrong things are with council finances.
In the one example you've linked to there is clearly evidence that the allegations are unfounded, and yet you would have people sacked, charged and banged up :crazy: :rolleyes:

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 09:42
uses some apparently flawed data

says who?

bearing in mind the council staff themselves are bound to lie about their own fraud, the Guardian and their ilk are so biased they should be ignored all of the time, does the Telegraph say there hasn't been widespread abuses of council credit cards?

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 09:44
In the one example you've linked to there is clearly evidence that the allegations are unfounded, and yet you would have people sacked, charged and banged up :crazy: :rolleyes:

It was not one incident, it mentioned loads of extravagant spending, why get bogged down with specific details and look at the broader issue, councils are robbing from rate/tax payers that is all you should be interested in, if you were normal of course.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 10:04
For a normal thinking person there's little to debate. They have their snouts in our trough and should be sacked, charged and banged up in that order.

The fact they haven't already been looked into just proves how wrong things are with council finances.

Are you capable of distinguishing between cases of fraud (which I've already agreed should be thoroughly investigated and punished accordingly), and cases where an employee takes advantage of a generous and possibly flawed policy?

Now I agree with you that there's certainly scope for reigning in what councils authorise as expenses, but you must surely recognise that you cannot "sack, charge [or] bang up" somebody who claims for expenses which are allowed - even if that means 5* hotels or first class flights?

Dave B
20th October 2011, 10:10
says who?

bearing in mind the council staff themselves are bound to lie about their own fraud, the Guardian and their ilk are so biased they should be ignored all of the time, does the Telegraph say there hasn't been widespread abuses of council credit cards?

Just to give one example, the Telegraph article mentions a councillor who claimed gifts for his chauffer - the comments claim that he did not have a chauffer. Now this is either true or false, it's not a matter of opinion.

Anyway, as I stated earlier, you fail to distinguish between genuine abuses and over-generous policy.

ArrowsFA1
20th October 2011, 10:23
It was not one incident...
I said "example" i.e. the link you provided. Just to be clear.


...why get bogged down with specific details and look at the broader issue, councils are robbing from rate/tax payers that is all you should be interested in, if you were normal of course.
Specific detail is a problem for your argument. Using one example (which has been shown to be flawed) in an attempt to paint a broad picture across councils in general is deliberately misleading. It's the kind of thing the likes of the Daily Mail and the Taxpayers Alliance do very well. Their headlines get attention, like the boy in the playground who shouts loudest.

Far from being "bogged down" with them, specific details provide evidence and facts which determine what is being claimed is actually true or not. In the example you've linked to there is little evidence, fact or truth to substantiate the claims made in the headlines.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 10:32
but you must surely recognise that you cannot "sack, charge [or] bang up" somebody who claims for expenses which are allowed - even if that means 5* hotels or first class flights?

a) sack whoever allowed such extravagances as acceptable
b) sack anyone who really thought such behaviour was acceptable as they are clearly thick as pig sh*t


Just to give one example, the Telegraph article mentions a councillor who claimed gifts for his chauffer - the comments claim that he did not have a chauffer. Now this is either true or false, it's not a matter of opinion.



Not really, he may have access to someone else's driver, so technically not his but his to use when required and if he wants to buy them a gift it should come out of his own pocket rather than the hard hit taxpayer as it does with those who are employed in the real world or he may not now but did at the time.

Besides such useless folk should not have drivers in the first place as they are by and large useless and not worth 25k let alone nearly 200k.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 10:36
Specific detail is a problem for your argument. Using one example (which has been shown to be flawed) in an attempt to paint a broad picture across councils in general is deliberately misleading. It's the kind of thing the likes of the Daily Mail and the Taxpayers Alliance do very well. Their headlines get attention, like the boy in the playground who shouts loudest.

Far from being "bogged down" with them, specific details provide evidence and facts which determine what is being claimed is actually true or not. In the example you've linked to there is little evidence, fact or truth to substantiate the claims made in the headlines.

No, wrong again, there are loads of examples given in that article, feel free to count them.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2011/10/town-hall-bosses-spending-credit-cards-revealed.html

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/tag/Government-Procurement-Cards

It doesn't really matter if a council employee is withdrawing out a tenner and putting it in his pocket or staying in accommodation that is not the cheapest - they are still robbing from their bosses i.e. us.

Bigger picture see.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 10:49
a) sack whoever allowed such extravagances as acceptable
b) sack anyone who really thought such behaviour was acceptable as they are clearly thick as pig sh*t
For someone who claims to run their own company you do have a rather shaky grasp of employment legislation. :s


Not really, he may have access to someone else's driver, so technically not his but his to use when required and if he wants to buy them a gift it should come out of his own pocket rather than the hard hit taxpayer as it does with those who are employed in the real world or he may not now but did at the time.

He "may" indeed. Like the article, and like me, you do not know the circumstances.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 10:55
No, wrong again, there are loads of examples given in that article, feel free to count them.

It doesn't really matter if a council employee is withdrawing out a tenner and putting it in his pocket or staying in accommodation that is not the cheapest - they are still robbing from their bosses i.e. us.

Bigger picture see.

I'm still unable to see examples of fraud in those articles. If there's any evidence of wrongdoing then I'm sure we all agree it needs investigating.

There are, clearly, examples of frivolity and generosity which would indicate that there's scope for the rules to be tightened up. Again, nobody seems to be disagreeing with you. But again without knowing the full circumstances we can't properly pass judgement. I've stayed in expensive hotels before (and I repeat: private sector job) because it meant I could be nearer to a workplace and save money on travel and get more work done. I know people who routinely travel in first class on trains because they can comfortably use a laptop and be productive instead of having to take travel time out of their day. I don't know whether that's the case in some of your examples so don't think I'm automatically defending the councils, but recognise that you don't know the full facts either.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 11:29
For someone who claims to run their own company you do have a rather shaky grasp of employment legislation. :s


If they have proved they are unfit to have that job then getting shut of them should be easy enough.


I'm still unable to see examples of fraud in those articles. If there's any evidence of wrongdoing then I'm sure we all agree it needs investigating.

There are, clearly, examples of frivolity and generosity which would indicate that there's scope for the rules to be tightened up. Again, nobody seems to be disagreeing with you. But again without knowing the full circumstances we can't properly pass judgement. I've stayed in expensive hotels before (and I repeat: private sector job) because it meant I could be nearer to a workplace and save money on travel and get more work done. I know people who routinely travel in first class on trains because they can comfortably use a laptop and be productive instead of having to take travel time out of their day. I don't know whether that's the case in some of your examples so don't think I'm automatically defending the councils, but recognise that you don't know the full facts either.

It is all fraud/theft as they as council employees should be watching every penny, going to watch Coldplay at our expense or staying in 5 star hotels is not doing that on whatever level you want to think of. You don't need the full details on every case, that would be far too time consuming.

Much easy to say all expenses must be the lowest available so for hotels £9 a night for example anything over and beyond that the employee pays themselves. Private sector can spend what it likes as it is not being funded from the public's purse.

Rollo
20th October 2011, 13:09
Private sector can spend what it likes as it is not being funded from the public's purse.

Actually the private sector IS funded from the public's purse when people buy goods and services. Those sorts of things get either factored into the price structure or become on-costs.
I take it you've either never generated invoices and/or never charged people for goods and services before.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 13:21
Actually the private sector IS funded from the public's purse when people buy goods and services. Those sorts of things get either factored into the price structure or become on-costs.
I take it you've either never generated invoices and/or never charged people for goods and services before.

Amazing, a relatively short post but so many glaring errors

No in private sector you have choice, so prices have to be kept keen to survive, not so with public sector, they know you can't go elsewhere which is one of the main reason they are so useless and pay themselves so much.

Do it daily as I live in the real world not la la land.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 13:31
If they have proved they are unfit to have that job then getting shut of them should be easy enough.
But you're applying this logic to people who have correctly followed an expenses policy. Whether the policy itself is flawed is not the point. You can't just "get shut of" people, whatever that means, without evidence of misconduct. You keep telling us you're an employer - I assume you're familiar with the most basic employment legislation, yes?


It is all fraud/theft as they as council employees should be watching every penny, going to watch Coldplay at our expense or staying in 5 star hotels is not doing that on whatever level you want to think of. You don't need the full details on every case, that would be far too time consuming.
You have a very strange definition of fraud and theft. I've yet to hear anybody disagree about there being scope for savings, and indeed some of the examples quoted appear on face value to be very strange indeed. But of course you need full details otherwise you're just engaging in wild speculation.


Much easy to say all expenses must be the lowest available so for hotels £9 a night for example anything over and beyond that the employee pays themselves. Private sector can spend what it likes as it is not being funded from the public's purse.
If someone is working away from their base they have a right to expect a halfway decent standard of accomodation and sustenance. I'm not sure a £9 hotel room, assuming they could be found, would adequately qualify.

Again, in your examples it does appear on face value that 5* hotels are an unnecessary luxury. Of course, they may have been picked as the least-worst compromise in travel for all parties, or because they had conference facilities. I don't know. Nor do you. At bulk corporate rates we used to pay less to stay in some 4 or 5 star hotels than the public would pay in a Travelodge, by the way.

Rollo
20th October 2011, 13:37
Amazing, a relatively short post but so many glaring errors

To clarify: Your suggesting that private firms don't get their money buy selling goods and services? Hmm, I must remember that the next time I generate an invoice for the work I do.


No in private sector you have choice, so prices have to be kept keen to survive, not so with public sector, they know you can't go elsewhere which is one of the main reason they are so useless and pay themselves so much.

Prices for goods and services are for the most part subject to the forces of supply and demand. If I had a good or service which was relatively rare, I would charge a higher rate for that good or service, and nominally the market would find equilibrium.
If you can charge more for a good or service without adverse effects to the bottom line, you'd be a damn fool not to.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 13:45
But you're applying this logic to people who have correctly followed an expenses policy. Whether the policy itself is flawed is not the point. You can't just "get shut of" people, whatever that means, without evidence of misconduct. You keep telling us you're an employer - I assume you're familiar with the most basic employment legislation, yes?


You have a very strange definition of fraud and theft. I've yet to hear anybody disagree about there being scope for savings, and indeed some of the examples quoted appear on face value to be very strange indeed. But of course you need full details otherwise you're just engaging in wild speculation.


If someone is working away from their base they have a right to expect a halfway decent standard of accomodation and sustenance. I'm not sure a £9 hotel room, assuming they could be found, would adequately qualify.

Again, in your examples it does appear on face value that 5* hotels are an unnecessary luxury. Of course, they may have been picked as the least-worst compromise in travel for all parties, or because they had conference facilities. I don't know. Nor do you. At bulk corporate rates we used to pay less to stay in some 4 or 5 star hotels than the public would pay in a Travelodge, by the way.

They are ripping the public off, that is theft - theft is gross misconduct - sackable offence straight away.

£9 per night is Travelodges, that is fine for these people, they aren't worth anything above that as a) they are usually incompetent and b) they are working for us.

Utter tosh you find me a UK town/city that hasn't a decent B&B or hotel within 5 or 10 minutes travel time.

If I claimed for such extravagant perks I'd be investigated straight away, you can't have one rule for one etc.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 13:49
To clarify: Your suggesting that private firms don't get their money buy selling goods and services? Hmm, I must remember that the next time I generate an invoice for the work I do.

Prices for goods and services are for the most part subject to the forces of supply and demand. If I had a good or service which was relatively rare, I would charge a higher rate for that good or service, and nominally the market would find equilibrium.
If you can charge more for a good or service without adverse effects to the bottom line, you'd be a damn fool not to.

No I didn't, you try tripling your next invoice and see what happens, you'll lose your customers, the public sector has tripled its costs yet hasn't given anything more, less in most cases.

They have a monopoly hence why they are so rubbish and charge so much. If you ave a crap meal you don't go to that restaurant again, now try that with say your rates, say the council services are 2nd rate and you're going elsewhere, ooops.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 13:54
They are ripping the public off, that is theft - theft is gross misconduct - sackable offence straight away.
Are you seriously that stupid? We're discussing people claiming their entitlements under an expenses policy which they agreed to when they signed their contract. Please, with your infinite wisdom, explain what's "theft" about that.


£9 per night is Travelodges, that is fine for these people, they aren't worth anything above that as a) they are usually incompetent and b) they are working for us.
I've never in my life found a Travelodge room that cheap. Again, if you know better, please show me where I can book a Travelodge (or equivalent standard) room in any major British city for £9 per night.


Utter tosh you find me a UK town/city that hasn't a decent B&B or hotel within 5 or 10 minutes travel time.
Quite possibly. But what if I needed conference facilities? Most cheap B&Bs at that rate wouldn't even have any AV equipment for the most basic of presentations. Now supposing I've got to hire such facilities. How much would that cost?


If I claimed for such extravagant perks I'd be investigated straight away, you can't have one rule for one etc.
I don't regard a decent basic hotel as "extravagant". Maybe you should look for a better job. :p

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 14:00
Are you seriously that stupid? We're discussing people claiming their entitlements under an expenses policy which they agreed to when they signed their contract. Please, with your infinite wisdom, explain what's "theft" about that.


I've never in my life found a Travelodge room that cheap. Again, if you know better, please show me where I can book a Travelodge (or equivalent standard) room in any major British city for £9 per night.


Quite possibly. But what if I needed conference facilities? Most cheap B&Bs at that rate wouldn't even have any AV equipment for the most basic of presentations. Now supposing I've got to hire such facilities. How much would that cost?


I don't regard a decent basic hotel as "extravagant". Maybe you should look for a better job. :p

Ahh yes insults.

It will not say book a suite at the Dorchester will it?

Plenty of nine pound rooms on their website, and even more at 19.

Why the need for a conference? Webinar / video conference would be cheaper, this is our money remember! It has to be done as cheaply as possible if not then they aren't doing their job so need sacking.

Dorchester - basic hotel, sorry I didn't realise you were a millionaire!

Dave B
20th October 2011, 14:12
Ahh yes insults.

It will not say book a suite at the Dorchester will it?

Plenty of nine pound rooms on their website, and even more at 19.
Prove it. You're making the claim. Find me a £9 room for any weekday in 2011 within 10 miles of the centre of (say) Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield or Edinburgh. There are a handful of £19 ones if you don't mind being totally inflexible on dates and locations, but you're claiming there are "plenty of nine pound rooms".


Why the need for a conference? Webinar / video conference would be cheaper, this is our money remember!
I actually agree with you on the basic premise of using technology.


It has to be done as cheaply as possible if not then they aren't doing their job so need sacking.
Showing that brilliant grasp of employment legislation again, I see.


Dorchester - basic hotel, sorry I didn't realise you were a millionaire!
Sigh. We've been over this several times: I've already agreed that on the face of it the Dorchester (quoted as a one-off example in your link) seems like an extravagance.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 14:13
PS, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how claiming legitimate expenses, even under a flawed policy, is theft and therefore liable to sacking for gross misconduct.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 14:21
Unless the rules state 'choose most lavish hotel you can' then they are not following the rules either to the letter or in spirit, please bear in mind that folk on min wage are paying these folk's wages.

Manchester Sportcity £19 for December, see no need for anything over £19, the £9 deal must have finished but they have done it in the past. Travelodge is more than adequate for these folk they do not need to be in a Radisson, De Vere or Hilton they are public servants FFS.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 14:37
Unless the rules state 'choose most lavish hotel you can' then they are not following the rules either to the letter or in spirit, please bear in mind that folk on min wage are paying these folk's wages.
Ah, well good luck sacking people for that and not facing a tribunal.


Manchester Sportcity £19 for December, see no need for anything over £19, the £9 deal must have finished but they have done it in the past. Travelodge is more than adequate for these folk they do not need to be in a Radisson, De Vere or Hilton they are public servants FFS.
As I suspected, no £9 rooms and to get the £19 rate you need to be utterly inflexible on your dates and forgo your cancellation rights. Thanks for confirming.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 14:45
If I ask my staff to buy cleaning products, coffee, envelopes etc I don't have to spell it out to them to not buy the top of the range, the only exception is tea bags I refuse to drink store brand ones they must be Tetley or PG, but no need for Domestos when store brand bleach will do, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. Public Sector should follow that ethos far more than I do, as I have said, their wages are being paid by some of the poorest people in society.

Why do they need flexibility if they are attending a conference somewhere on a set date? Oh of course, they don't! If they have to cancel because they are sick (which they are frequently; far more than private sector, odd that in'it) then someone else could take their place as public sector employs 3 people to do the work of 1, to cover for sickies and because they are mostly useless.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 14:55
He didn't insult you, you just think he did.. ;)

no


Are you seriously that stupid?

that is an insult, but I've come to expect as much, forum rules don't apply to the clique it would appear

I've had points for far less

ArrowsFA1
20th October 2011, 14:55
You don't need the full details on every case, that would be far too time consuming.
It would be interesting if courts took the same view :dozey:


that is an insult, but I've come to expect as much
Pot. Kettle. Black:

...that is all you should be interested in, if you were normal of course.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 14:57
It would be interesting if courts took the same view :dozey:

Have I news for you sunbeam, we ain't a court, besides none of your replies would stand up to scrutiny if we were.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 14:58
Have I news for you sunbeam, we ain't a court, besides none of your replies would stand up to scrutiny if we were.

But if you sacked any of your staff in the circumstances you've been outlining, you could very well find yourself on the wrong end of a tribunal.

ArrowsFA1
20th October 2011, 15:03
But if you sacked any of your staff in the circumstances you've been outlining, you could very well find yourself on the wrong end of a tribunal.
And it could be very interesting if that tribunual didn't "bother with the full details" on Bolton's case because it was "far too time consuming" to do so.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 15:19
Ways of getting rid of folk, anyone that employs folk knows that full well and no tribunals either.

If they bought stuff that I deemed too expensive they would be told, do it again and it would be tatty bye time.

Dave B
20th October 2011, 15:24
That's very interesting and revealing.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 15:31
It's called the real world, plenty of folk looking for work at the mo. Buyers market and all that. Something public sector know nothing about it would seem.

ArrowsFA1
20th October 2011, 16:02
It's called the real world, plenty of folk looking for work at the mo. Buyers market and all that. Something public sector know nothing about it would seem.
Given the 150,000 or so redundancies since this government came to power, and with 490,000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/19/spending-review-document-job-cuts) expected by 2014-15, I think it is safe to say that each and every one of those employed in the public sector are very well aware of the reality they are faced with.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 17:15
Given the 150,000 or so redundancies since this government came to power, and with 490,000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/19/spending-review-document-job-cuts) expected by 2014-15, I think it is safe to say that each and every one of those employed in the public sector are very well aware of the reality they are faced with.

Judging by their head in the sand stance on pensions, pay rises etc clearly they don't. They need to accept that Labour paid them too much and employed too many of them. A few of the more switched on ones have already cut and run, leaving the dross behind, lucky us!

½ million nowhere near enough, needs to be more and start from the top down unlike what they are doing at the mo getting rid of folk at the bottom for political / greed reasons.

Bolton Midnight
20th October 2011, 17:16
oooh a Guardian link, it must be true then, lucky it wasn't a Telegraph or Mail link otherwise it would be complete B/S then!

ArrowsFA1
20th October 2011, 17:45
oooh a Guardian link, it must be true then, lucky it wasn't a Telegraph or Mail link otherwise it would be complete B/S then!
Can the Taxpayers Alliance provide you with a link that contradicts that figure then? Unlikely given that it comes directly from the government's own spending review, ergo the Guardian is factually correct. So yes, it is true.

Mark
20th October 2011, 19:28
I've never in my life found a Travelodge room that cheap. Again, if you know better, please show me where I can book a Travelodge (or equivalent standard) room in any major British city for £9 per night.

I've stayed in travelodges dozens, possibly over a hundred times for £9 per night. However that rate ended this year due to the VAT rise. It's £10

pS many of the posts in this thread are disgusting. Even from long term respected members I would expect better from.


I don't regard a decent basic hotel as "extravagant". Maybe you should look for a better job. :p [/QUOTE]

Bolton Midnight
21st October 2011, 14:16
Can the Taxpayers Alliance provide you with a link that contradicts that figure then? Unlikely given that it comes directly from the government's own spending review, ergo the Guardian is factually correct. So yes, it is true.

My god you have got Guardianitas real bad haven't you? It is not factual as it is a prediction, it has even happened yet so how can their figures be factual? FFS! get a grip.

But safe to say even ½m is way too little it needs to be far greater and top down not bottom up - bloodbath budget is what we should have had.


I've stayed in travelodges dozens, possibly over a hundred times for £9 per night. However that rate ended this year due to the VAT rise. It's £10


Many thanks, I knew £9 were available in the past, but alas as I couldn't find a link on the Guardian I must have been making it up.

ArrowsFA1
21st October 2011, 14:56
It is not factual as it is a prediction, it has even happened yet so how can their figures be factual? FFS! get a grip.
Calm down dear :p (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13207256)

You rather miss the point which was not the fact of the figure itself but the factual basis of the report.

The Guardian's report is true & accurate (unlike certain others used in this thread) in that the figures quoted come directly (see photo in the story) from the government's own spending review. 490,000 is clearly not a fact (yet), but the governments own estimate based on their own plans.

Bolton Midnight
21st October 2011, 18:33
ergo the Guardian is factually correct. So yes, it is true.

No it is not, as it is in the future so no figure is a fact regardless of whether it is Telegraph, Guardian, TPA or even LiberalConspiracy !!

It is not factual it is a guestimate, get over yourself.

ArrowsFA1
25th October 2011, 09:29
It is not factual it is a guestimate
Correct. The figure of 490,000 redundancies was a guestimate. But again you miss the point which was not the fact of the figure itself but the factual basis of the report in the Guardian when compared to, for example, the Taxpayers Alliance sensationalist headline which has been shown to be inaccurate and misleading.

Rather like Tory claims that the private sector has created 500,000 jobs (a figure that conveniently covers the 490,000 to be lost in the public sector) in the last year. It sounds very impressive until you look closer:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-cameron-reoffends-on-private-sector-job-figures

Bolton Midnight
25th October 2011, 15:12
So you are getting a hard on because the Guardian used the ONS guestimate whoopee doo.

I don't know if the Taxpayers Alliance, Socialist Worker, Telegraph, Daily Wail even covered the story and if they did whose guesswork they quoted but regardless to say that half a million is still nowhere near enough it should be a lot more.

Knock-on
27th October 2011, 13:56
So you are getting a hard on because the Guardian used the ONS guestimate whoopee doo.

I don't know if the Taxpayers Alliance, Socialist Worker, Telegraph, Daily Wail even covered the story and if they did whose guesswork they quoted but regardless to say that half a million is still nowhere near enough it should be a lot more.

You do make me chuckle. Your name's not Brian is it?

What have the Romans ever done for us - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso)

Bolton Midnight
27th October 2011, 14:12
What have the Diversity Out Reach Managers ever done for the taxpayer

Sod all that is what

Sack em

ArrowsFA1
27th October 2011, 16:48
Are any of these non-jobs, then? That depends on your priorities and what services you think the state should provide. But most of them are so utterly essential that it is breathtaking to think Tory spokesmen, or even the Tory press, can imagine there should be no directors of children's services and no managers to run social services for old people.
But if tax cuts are a priority, it's necessary to rubbish the entire public sector as politically correct jobsworths. Call every manager a bureaucrat. Never spell out what the services do, simply mock their titles. The Tories claim they can cut waste and pen-pushers, and no doubt everywhere there is always some waste (though no such scrutiny falls on bad management in the private sector to make fair comparisons).
Don't mock the job titles. Spell out what they mean (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/16/comment.publicservices)

Yes, it's from the Guardian so feel free to mock and dismiss in the usual manner...or read and consider....and note the date.

BDunnell
27th October 2011, 16:58
Don't mock the job titles. Spell out what they mean (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/16/comment.publicservices)

Yes, it's from the Guardian so feel free to mock and dismiss in the usual manner...or read and consider....and note the date.

Given that the person to whom you addressed that post has never deigned to let us know what the supremely worthwhile health-related job he performs is, perhaps such attitudes are either no surprise, or somewhat hypocritical. We just don't know.

Bolton Midnight
27th October 2011, 17:55
Don't mock the job titles. Spell out what they mean (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/16/comment.publicservices)

Yes, it's from the Guardian so feel free to mock and dismiss in the usual manner...or read and consider....and note the date.

Couldn't possibly read such a long article written by that hypocritical bitch.

But safe to say yes there are some worthwhile public sector jobs but even those there are too many of them (where pen pushing is concerned).

But saying there are some does not defend those that need axing, does it?

Bolton Midnight
27th October 2011, 17:56
Given that the person to whom you addressed that post has never deigned to let us know what the supremely worthwhile health-related job he performs is, perhaps such attitudes are either no surprise, or somewhat hypocritical. We just don't know.

Still waiting for your address, mobile number, bank details etc

BDunnell
27th October 2011, 20:16
Still waiting for your address, mobile number, bank details etc

Only a fool would see any similarity between the divulging of personal data such as you mention, and the simple act of saying what job one does.

Bolton Midnight
27th October 2011, 20:25
Only a fool would see any similarity between the divulging of personal data such as you mention, and the simple act of saying what job one does.

It is all private information, if you can't see that then more fool you.

Not entirely sure why you are so interested anyway, nowt to do with you.