Messages

Just what is the point, can't we have some original stuff for a change.
Sequels, prequels, remakes, reimaginings, why oh why!

At the risk of a boring answer... originality is seen as financially risky. Safer to go with a proven property as fans will still take a look.

Regards

Robin

Ewww! Will you pack that in?

I would, but it's grown too big.

Regards

Robin

I wish they would just sort it all out and stopping posting pictures of Nick Clegg everywhere wearing his suit. It is playing havoc with my libido, he's not even that pretty - why's he so sexy?

Just imagine him cozying up to Gordon Brown in a sauna and that should put you right.

Regards

Robin

[WASH MY BRAIN!]

I suspect the foreplay would last for days...

Holy Christ! I need to WASH MY BRAIN!

It's not often I use these things, but 


Regards

Robin

...LONG replies...

This is partly where you're going wrong, Peter. Your posts are often so long and rambling that the point you're trying to make is often lost in the confusion. In all seriousness, and without intending to insult, you need to tighten your focus when you write.


Regards

Robin

I want to watch them have sex.

I suspect the foreplay would last for days...

Regards

Robin

I havent got time for squabbling with you.

Given your normal posting rate, that surprises me.

Regards

Robin

There you go again.You sounded like you wanted this thread to end in a flaming session but i wont be doing that.

I have lost respect for you now.

Your post count is about eight times what mine is - it was hardly an unreasonable observation and certainly not hostile enough to be considered flaming.

Regards

Robin

So what ?

What has my post rate got to do with what is being talked about here ?

Is this an attempt at muckraking ?

Its totally irrelevent because i said that i have no wish to squabble with you yet you chose to start being personal.

Also i didnt say that your comments were flaming up till now but its very clear to me how this could end which is why i said "I dont have time to squabble with you" which means i am not interested.

That was an attempt at spin but it was a failure.Just give it up.

Peter, you said you didn't have time for squabbling. I was pointing out that your high post rate suggests that you have have plenty of time to spare. As I said, not an unreasonable observation, nor hostile, and certainly not muckraking or spin.

As I'm sure others will tell you, I never give up.

Regards

Robin

I havent got time for squabbling with you.

Given your normal posting rate, that surprises me.

Regards

Robin

There you go again.You sounded like you wanted this thread to end in a flaming session but i wont be doing that.

I have lost respect for you now.

Your post count is about eight times what mine is - it was hardly an unreasonable observation and certainly not hostile enough to be considered flaming.

Regards

Robin

I havent got time for squabbling with you.

Given your normal posting rate, that surprises me.

Regards

Robin

[EDIT:]

I've been trying to figure out who should be in charge...

Conservative - Votes: 10,706,647 -- 36.1%
Labour - Votes: 8,604,358 -- 29.0%
Liberal Democrat - Votes: 6,827,938 -- 23.0%

Only 36.1% of voters want the Conservative in charge.

Only 23% want the Lib Dems involved in government, but they're the ones who are the deciding factor.

If they both end up in charge, you disenfranchise ~40% of the population. If the Lib Dems and Labour got together, you'd disenfranchise ~48% of the population. Neither of those are insignificant minorities.

It seems to me that the real problem here is having to have a Prime Minister who is the leader of a party. What might be better is a cabinet whose members are elected by the MPs, with a PM elected by the elected cabinet. EDIT: This probably falls apart if one party has a huge majority.

Okay, that's a simplistic off-the-cuff idea. Come kick it around until it works.



Regards

Robin

I've been trying to figure out who should be in charge...

Conservative - Votes: 10,706,647 -- 36.1%
Labour - Votes: 8,604,358 -- 29.0%
Liberal Democrat - Votes: 6,827,938 -- 23.0%

Only 36.1% of voters want the Conservative in charge.

Only 23% want the Lib Dems involved in government, but they're the ones who are the deciding factor.

If they both end up in charge, you disenfranchise ~40% of the population. If the Lib Dems and Labour got together, you'd disenfranchise ~48% of the population. Neither of those are insignificant minorities.

It seems to me that the real problem here is having to have a Prime Minister who is the leader of a party. What might be better is a cabinet whose members are elected by the MPs, with a PM elected by the elected cabinet.

Okay, that's a simplistic off-the-cuff idea. Come kick it around until it works.



Regards

Robin

A chorus of disapproval and reflex actions caused by cognitive dissonance because a lot of people cant handle the truth.

*shrug* That could as easily be said about you as anyone else.

Regards

Robin

My good lady works for the NHS and her mother retired from it a couple of years ago. Now from what they tell me, it is top heavy (by the way her mother was very high up) and the wastage of money is unbelievable, due to many factors!
The problem is, if you try to rock the boat by saying this, then say goodbye to your career.

We all have our own experiences, but I'm already seeing the effects of removing manager-level posts and redistributing work to lower grades. I also tend to keep my ears open more than most of my colleagues, so I'm aware of the amount of work that goes on at higher levels. Those of us lower down the tree simply wouldn't able to operate without others taking on a massive amount of tedious but essential work. My other half and her sister also work in a related lab, and because of extra work they've had to take on, they can also attest to the amount of work staff higher up the tree have to cope with, and how necessary they are.

There's also an ongoing request in our Trust for ideas for saving money and reducing waste, all ideas welcome. We also do work for the private sector - because of our volume work, we're more cost effective than the private sector can ever possibly be, so we bring money into our department - this of course goes to the service not to staff.

It would be daft of me to suggest that in an organisation as large and diverse as the NHS there are aren't examples of bad practice and waste, but again I shy away from the easier targets.

Don't get me on about 'Team FUCKING Building exercises'  anyway I'm moving off the subject

Never been on or been offered a team building exercise - not aware of anyone else who has, either.

Public services are a subject worth discussing.


Regards

Robin

Unfortunately, much of it would also involve the public stopping smoking, stopping drinking, stopping eating unhealthily, doing more exercise,

But many of these people are still going to get cancer or develop other diseases requiring long-term care or expensive surgical solutions. At the same time, many of those who would otherwise obligingly die young or drop down dead from a coronary are going to live to an expensive old age requiring full time residential/nursing care.

I can't point you to specific research, but epidemiologists do take this kind of stuff into account. And with specific regard to alcohol, when you add in the myriad social effects we start going beyond the NHS.

The aim is a longer life with fewer problems in old age as the result of healthier lifestyle when younger.

Regards

Robin

I place blame for the problem on the ignorance and selfishness of the general public.

Ah, ignorance. I read a touching analysis in The Guardian last week that described it as 'heartbreaking' that, in a survey, 70% of the British public agreed with the proposition that it is possible to reduce public spending without cutting front-line services.

Actually, I suspect that is possible in the NHS. Unfortunately, much of it would also involve the public stopping smoking, stopping drinking, stopping eating unhealthily, doing more exercise, not going to the GM or A&E for niffles and grazes, and so on.

There's a  general perception that we're over-run by expensive managers, but in reality services are so complex that they need managing. What's currently happening is that when senior people are retiring, all the work they did is being shared out to other people who are already over-loaded with work and have no time, without any increase in pay.

I often wonder what the public consider front-line services to be. I work in the labs, so the public doesn't see me, but 70% of diagnoses are based on lab results.

Regards

Robin