Before New Labour came to power in 1997 waits for hospital treatment of more than 18 months were not rare, now no-one waits longer than six months. Hurrah! Yes? – No. Not necessarily.
Sounds good, at first sight though, dosn’t it? The sort of soundbite Gordon Brown would proudly boast of in PMQ, or at conference.
The thing is the average wait has risen from 41 days to 49 days. Only 8 days up you may think. But it is 8 days longer on average.
This is a symptom of New Labour thinking. Everyone must be brought to a level. It’s like education, rather than raise up those getting a worse service they bring down everybody to the lowest level. The lowest common denominator, as they used to say - when such terms were recognised and understood by more people. So practically speaking overall levels of delivery drop.
Just so with waiting lists. To drop that headline figure to 6 months it is true that the really long waits have been drastically cut – but so have the really short ones.
So why did there used to be really short waits?
The question is who prioritised those waits back then? Well Doctors did, based on medical need, the urgency of the case. Now they are prioritised in order to meet state targets. One size fits all. So if you really need a short wait…
As chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, Jonathan Fielden, pointed out "Doctors have been stopped from using their clinical judgement and pushing people through the system when they need to be.”
So the question you need to ask yourself is: Are you actually getting a better service, or just taken for yet another ride…
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Monday, 3 March 2008
Nine in every ten UK voters want a referendum of Lisbon Treaty
A recent series of large scale mini-referendaorganised by I want a referendum.com on the issue of a demand for national referendum to ratify the so-called Lisbon Treaty reveals that 88% of voters would like UK ratification of the treaty be subject to a referendum. The turnout to these was higher than in a national election.
The Treaty is effectively identical to the rejected European constitution and hands large chunks of parliamentary power to the EU.
Presumably the voters don’t trust MP’s with the powers they have loaned them. Don’t trust them not to sell all our birthrights for a mess of pottage (lentil stew or soup). Hardly surprising really, when they apparently can’t even be trusted over expenses.
Will this result influence parliament?
Not very likely, based on Gordon Brown’s - and now for some unfathomable reason Nick Clegg’s ludicrous insistence that a referendum is not needed. They are desperately and entirely unconvincingly trying to maintain the lie that the treaty is not effectively identical to the constitution that they agreed did need one. This in the face of continental insistence that it is.
Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten that power is not his by natural right. His power is loaned to him by the electorate. It is given based upon promises his party made before the last election that they would allow a referendum.
Clegg is trying to confuse the issue with suggestions of a referendum on remaining in the EU, presumably because he feels this can be used to fudge the issue as it is less likely the electorate would actually completely repudiate the UK’s EU membership. Brown does not even want to chance that.
If he will not allow a referendum on the treaty, then no matter what he says, his position is not legitimate. Nor his authority. Nor will the treaty be.
The Treaty is effectively identical to the rejected European constitution and hands large chunks of parliamentary power to the EU.
Presumably the voters don’t trust MP’s with the powers they have loaned them. Don’t trust them not to sell all our birthrights for a mess of pottage (lentil stew or soup). Hardly surprising really, when they apparently can’t even be trusted over expenses.
Will this result influence parliament?
Not very likely, based on Gordon Brown’s - and now for some unfathomable reason Nick Clegg’s ludicrous insistence that a referendum is not needed. They are desperately and entirely unconvincingly trying to maintain the lie that the treaty is not effectively identical to the constitution that they agreed did need one. This in the face of continental insistence that it is.
Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten that power is not his by natural right. His power is loaned to him by the electorate. It is given based upon promises his party made before the last election that they would allow a referendum.
Clegg is trying to confuse the issue with suggestions of a referendum on remaining in the EU, presumably because he feels this can be used to fudge the issue as it is less likely the electorate would actually completely repudiate the UK’s EU membership. Brown does not even want to chance that.
If he will not allow a referendum on the treaty, then no matter what he says, his position is not legitimate. Nor his authority. Nor will the treaty be.
Rural communities in the UK get a raw deal from New Labour
A report by the Rural Services Network points out what has been apparent for years; that ‘rural’ communities Small towns, villages and hamlets in the UK, come a very poor last when it comes to almost anything the state has control over or any influence in.
Things like schools, hospitals, post offices, public transport, police stations, fire stations, etc.
In many areas it is literally impossible to manage without cars. If there is heavy rain or snow many of these can not get through.
Schools and hospitals are have been centralised into larger and larger buildings, further and further away from many rural communities.
This is hardly surprising when the state is controlled by an urban patrician elite, who see anything outside of large towns and cities as the equivalent of one large diorama, or quaint theme park, provided largely for rambling purposes and as a backdrop for BBC costume dramas.
It is also worth noting that where these elite do not hold sway they are quite happy to damage the provision of services in order to ensure those provided in their own seats are maintained and their seats are therefore safer.
They would presumably prefer to spend nothing on it, whilst still milking those living there for every penny they can - pretending the entire countryside is populated by fabulously rich conservative farmers who spend all day hunting foxes.
Will this report make any difference? Probably not…
Things like schools, hospitals, post offices, public transport, police stations, fire stations, etc.
In many areas it is literally impossible to manage without cars. If there is heavy rain or snow many of these can not get through.
Schools and hospitals are have been centralised into larger and larger buildings, further and further away from many rural communities.
This is hardly surprising when the state is controlled by an urban patrician elite, who see anything outside of large towns and cities as the equivalent of one large diorama, or quaint theme park, provided largely for rambling purposes and as a backdrop for BBC costume dramas.
It is also worth noting that where these elite do not hold sway they are quite happy to damage the provision of services in order to ensure those provided in their own seats are maintained and their seats are therefore safer.
They would presumably prefer to spend nothing on it, whilst still milking those living there for every penny they can - pretending the entire countryside is populated by fabulously rich conservative farmers who spend all day hunting foxes.
Will this report make any difference? Probably not…
Friday, 29 February 2008
Quote of the day
” Rule #1: Use your good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.”Nordstrom's Employee Handbook
Drudge report risks coalition trops lives in Afganistan
The fact that Prince Harry has been serving with the UK’s armed forces in Helmand Province has been blown by the Drudge Report.
The fact is that he - and the troops he leads can only function effectively, at normal risk levels if he remains anonymous. Without that, the risk escalates astronomically.
So what is the difference between an enemy spy and Matt Drudge?
I am not sure what else you could call it - making sensitive military information available to enemy forces via the internet.
Information that affects the security of operations and could cost lives. It’s not as if there is even an overriding moral factor that might justify it. He knew it was going to be widely known once it was safe to release the information, but it was time sensitive.
He knew that, but apparently disregarded it, just to get a grubby scoop. But this isn’t really politics, or scandal, this is brave, mostly ordinary, people with integrity just trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
At the very least it is dangerously irresponsible and done with little concern as to the possible ramifications, or the welfare of others.
So - The difference? Well Drudge makes a profit out of it, rather than doing it for merely ideological reasons.
He is reputed to be doing very nicely out of it, owning a luxurious Mediterranean-style home on Rivo Alto Island in Florida's Biscayne Bay, a condo at the Four Seasons in Miami and reportedly drives around in a black Mustang.
It is the way of the world that he will probably continue to enjoy them - and is unlikely to suffer any doubts, or be bothered by the consequences to others, such as troops who are just trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.
The fact is that he - and the troops he leads can only function effectively, at normal risk levels if he remains anonymous. Without that, the risk escalates astronomically.
So what is the difference between an enemy spy and Matt Drudge?
I am not sure what else you could call it - making sensitive military information available to enemy forces via the internet.
Information that affects the security of operations and could cost lives. It’s not as if there is even an overriding moral factor that might justify it. He knew it was going to be widely known once it was safe to release the information, but it was time sensitive.
He knew that, but apparently disregarded it, just to get a grubby scoop. But this isn’t really politics, or scandal, this is brave, mostly ordinary, people with integrity just trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
At the very least it is dangerously irresponsible and done with little concern as to the possible ramifications, or the welfare of others.
So - The difference? Well Drudge makes a profit out of it, rather than doing it for merely ideological reasons.
He is reputed to be doing very nicely out of it, owning a luxurious Mediterranean-style home on Rivo Alto Island in Florida's Biscayne Bay, a condo at the Four Seasons in Miami and reportedly drives around in a black Mustang.
It is the way of the world that he will probably continue to enjoy them - and is unlikely to suffer any doubts, or be bothered by the consequences to others, such as troops who are just trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Surgeon ’hurried up’ patient's death to get at his organs
This is what can come from a system that is a little too anxious to harvest organs for transplant.
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Quote of the day
” If we cannot learn, if the only effect upon us of the presence of the dynamiter in our midst is to make us multiply punishments, invent restrictions, increase the number of our official spies, forbid public meetings, interfere with the press, put up gratings -- as in one country they propose to do -- in our House of Commons, scrutinize visitors under official microscopes, request them, as at Vienna, and I think now at Paris also, to be good enough to leave their greatcoats in the vestibules ... I venture to prophesy that there lies before us a bitter and an evil time.”Auberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert (1838—1906) Writer, Philosopher ~ and MP
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Issue of DNA records of the innocent reaches European Court
Did you wonder why Det Supt Stuart Cundy, who led the murder hunt which led to Mark Dixie's conviction, started going on about a compulsory national DNA database the other day? What his agenda might have been?
Unlike Scotland, where they take their civil liberties a wee bit more seriously, In England and Wales if the police arrest you, even if you have done nothing wrong, like the guy with the MP3 player, they will take your DNA and you will go into New Labour’s National DNA database, never to be removed.
This is unlike the tried and tested system with fingerprints where they only keep them if a person is convicted and people don’t mind giving them for elimination purposes because they know they will be destroyed afterwards.
Now the police’s practices with the DNA database is being challenged in the European Court of human rights as an infringement of an individuals right to privacy and anti-discrimination.
This database is scarily already the largest of it’s kind in the whole world.
If they win then the police will have to remove the DNA records from the system of those who have not been convicted and the system will have to work more like the fingerprint system or the Scottish system.
It is quite probable that a compulsory universal DNA database (that the police appear to be covertly working their way towards already) would indeed probably result in a few extra detections, or earlier detections of crimes.
Then again, so would electronically tagging every citizen, at their own expense, with a mini GPS system, camera and Microphone that relayed the info it recorded to a central database would too.
The question is, is the price paid in the loss of your civil liberties worth the benefits of the illusion of safety. DNA evidence can be spoofed, or compromised, by the savvy criminal and it is not always necessarily as reliable as it is imagined to be by the general public.
If they ever do manage to force a compulsory national DNA database on us by some devious means (Passports? ID Cards?). it will be great for the Authoritarians who want to check our every move.
Then there is the good old mission creep factor. What else would they get up to with the information? - One could do racial profiling in the name of medical research for instance…
One thing is certain - before long every junior civil servant and council worker in the country would have access and you could be sure they could not be trusted not to leave millions of records on a bus somewhere, or just loose them.
Best it is stopped. It comes to something when a UK citizen has to appeal to the European court to protect their civil rights from our own Government.
Unlike Scotland, where they take their civil liberties a wee bit more seriously, In England and Wales if the police arrest you, even if you have done nothing wrong, like the guy with the MP3 player, they will take your DNA and you will go into New Labour’s National DNA database, never to be removed.
This is unlike the tried and tested system with fingerprints where they only keep them if a person is convicted and people don’t mind giving them for elimination purposes because they know they will be destroyed afterwards.
Now the police’s practices with the DNA database is being challenged in the European Court of human rights as an infringement of an individuals right to privacy and anti-discrimination.
This database is scarily already the largest of it’s kind in the whole world.
If they win then the police will have to remove the DNA records from the system of those who have not been convicted and the system will have to work more like the fingerprint system or the Scottish system.
It is quite probable that a compulsory universal DNA database (that the police appear to be covertly working their way towards already) would indeed probably result in a few extra detections, or earlier detections of crimes.
Then again, so would electronically tagging every citizen, at their own expense, with a mini GPS system, camera and Microphone that relayed the info it recorded to a central database would too.
The question is, is the price paid in the loss of your civil liberties worth the benefits of the illusion of safety. DNA evidence can be spoofed, or compromised, by the savvy criminal and it is not always necessarily as reliable as it is imagined to be by the general public.
If they ever do manage to force a compulsory national DNA database on us by some devious means (Passports? ID Cards?). it will be great for the Authoritarians who want to check our every move.
Then there is the good old mission creep factor. What else would they get up to with the information? - One could do racial profiling in the name of medical research for instance…
One thing is certain - before long every junior civil servant and council worker in the country would have access and you could be sure they could not be trusted not to leave millions of records on a bus somewhere, or just loose them.
Best it is stopped. It comes to something when a UK citizen has to appeal to the European court to protect their civil rights from our own Government.
‘Most Wanted Fugitive’ actually innocent German holidaymaker
It just goes to show how much you can rely on facial recognition software.
A German couple on holiday in the Sicilian resort of Taormina last year were mis-identified as James J Bulger, alleged American crime boss, one of the FBI’s most wanted - and his girlfriend Catherine Grieg.
Fortunately the FBI appear to have adopted a more sensible approach since they had pensioner Derek Bond arrested at gunpoint and clapped in irons whilst on a wine tasting holiday in South Africa. They misidentified him as one Derek Sykes, on their most wanted list. It was days before they even bothered to go look at him. He had to agree to extradition to try and sort it out.
It could have been far worse, he could have been in real trouble as happened to a German businessman in 2005, whilst off on holiday going to Macedonia.
He was allegedly arrested, held captive, flown to Afghanistan and tortured - by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of one of the 7/11 Hijackers.
Oops! Sorry…
Presumably this is the same vaunted biometric technology to be included in Passports and New Labour’s beloved ID card system and database. The same facial recognition software that was trialled last year as a part of a airport security and hailed as a success.
Knowing it’s going to be there ready to misidentify you as a dangerous gangster, or a terrorist should make you feel so much more secure – doesn’t it?
A German couple on holiday in the Sicilian resort of Taormina last year were mis-identified as James J Bulger, alleged American crime boss, one of the FBI’s most wanted - and his girlfriend Catherine Grieg.
Fortunately the FBI appear to have adopted a more sensible approach since they had pensioner Derek Bond arrested at gunpoint and clapped in irons whilst on a wine tasting holiday in South Africa. They misidentified him as one Derek Sykes, on their most wanted list. It was days before they even bothered to go look at him. He had to agree to extradition to try and sort it out.
It could have been far worse, he could have been in real trouble as happened to a German businessman in 2005, whilst off on holiday going to Macedonia.
He was allegedly arrested, held captive, flown to Afghanistan and tortured - by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of one of the 7/11 Hijackers.
Oops! Sorry…
Presumably this is the same vaunted biometric technology to be included in Passports and New Labour’s beloved ID card system and database. The same facial recognition software that was trialled last year as a part of a airport security and hailed as a success.
Knowing it’s going to be there ready to misidentify you as a dangerous gangster, or a terrorist should make you feel so much more secure – doesn’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
