Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,373 comments
- 618,234 views
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,450
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Headlines change as more facts become known even if they don't update the original page title. The story the link leads to is far from a "whitewash".Well, ain't it nice how the link says a "family man" was shot dead.
Some of the media will whitewash scum like this with all they got.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-m62-motorway-near-huddersfield-pre-planned/
- 29,380
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Well, ain't it nice how the link says a "family man" was shot dead.
Some of the media will whitewash scum like this with all they got.
Well spotted... I guess being a father of two and a violent, armed drug dealer poses a headache for headline writers on a strict word limit. That said, I can think of a single word that would have summarised the bloke pretty well.
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
Northerner?
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
I think both extremes (saint, sinner) are unfair at this point.
Let the Independent Police investigation decid if it was lawful or otherwise, and eventually the circumstances will become clear.
Meanwhile some kids have lost their father, and some parents their son. Doesn't mean anyone should be starting a riot either.
Let the Independent Police investigation decid if it was lawful or otherwise, and eventually the circumstances will become clear.
Meanwhile some kids have lost their father, and some parents their son. Doesn't mean anyone should be starting a riot either.
- 2,865
- Australia
Considering the Marge Simpson-esque "hair", I can't help but wonder if he called his friends homies.It seems the UK police cannot engage armed drug dealers without fear of sparking a riot these days...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/04/family-man-shot-dead-police-join-mp-appeal-calm-protests/
He appears to have been quite a nasty character, but at least he had interesting hair...
edit: I just accidentally set this picture as my wallpaper at work
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
- 29,380
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
If you have more than a handful and your not a business then yeah you've got something to hide. I wonder why the press is all over this point if it's not unusual?
Let's not jump to conclusions here... just because the guy has his house covered in CCTV cameras, carries a gun and drives a Lamborghini Aventador in Huddersfield doesn't necessarily make him a drug dealer...
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
Reality TV celebrity with a hunting licence?
Also... I wonder how the Lambo's suspension deals with all those cobbled streets and cart tracks?
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
Jeremy Hunt does a U-turn - literally.........
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 7,485
- East Midlands
- m8h3r
If they do privatise then it could go either of 2 ways, really bad or really well with reasonable waiting times etc. I had to wait 7 months to get a tooth pulled cause my dentist was too scared it'd crack so I spent Sept '15-april'16 with regular tooth aches from it. I was in there for about 25 minutes.
- 87,636
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Not exactly. It's just the NHS buys in talent, resources and equipment from the better-funded, more efficient and more profitable private sector.
That and NHS trusts love nothing more than absolutely hurling money at things to justify their budgets. If it wasn't a massive public sector gravy train, it would have been put out of its misery decades ago.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
True, but I think the "stealth" is in the fact that many people probably don't realise just how much of the "public" NHS relies on such services - and they're not all necessarily a bad thing.
Next we need to scrap the standalone ambulance service and go for a shared Fire and Rescue model.
- 7,485
- East Midlands
- m8h3r
People think they know a lot about the NHS. Like the good old "foreigners are putting strain on the NHS" argument for Brexit. Half the NHS are foreign
- 87,636
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Most people probably don't realise what the NHS is - and isn't. Asking them to explain why they pay for glasses, and dentistry, and prescriptions in a 'free healthcare' service is always a fun diversion, especially as that's pretty much the majority of what everyone in the UK will ever use between their parents' maternity visit and their own last visit...
- 4,041
- Derbyshire, UK
- DG Silva
I'm not going to lie, I've had more than my money's worth out of the NHS during my 35 years on this planet, so I can honestly say that the NHS is one of the best things ever made. However, the abuses which are made of the NHS are ridiculous and these stretch already thin resources beyond the capacity of what they were designed for.
We've all heard the stories of boob jobs and gender reassignments done on the service, depending on how much you want to believe the Daily Fail, however it's the multitude of times when people can pay for prescriptions but don't just because they have children or are disabled under the Minor Ailments scheme. I'm not disputing that these are required, and the amount of money they cost are small, but I'm sure that multiplied by the millions of instances it would amount to a substantial amount of money.
Add into this the Private Initiative Scheme introduced by Labour which the NHS trusts are still having to pay for, investments which failed with the collapse of the banks, excessive expenditure made by middle managers who are responsible for the savings requested by the previous Con Dem coalition, and spending being made for unnecessary courses such as diversity awareness or celebrating Black History Month. There are plenty of savings to be made within these areas but trust seem unwilling to do so.
Putting aside the argument of too many immigrants/NHS would fall on its knees without immigrants, it is plainly clear that the NHS, and the rest of the emergency services and transport systems for that matter, have not expanded with the same pace as the population increase of this country.
We've all heard the stories of boob jobs and gender reassignments done on the service, depending on how much you want to believe the Daily Fail, however it's the multitude of times when people can pay for prescriptions but don't just because they have children or are disabled under the Minor Ailments scheme. I'm not disputing that these are required, and the amount of money they cost are small, but I'm sure that multiplied by the millions of instances it would amount to a substantial amount of money.
Add into this the Private Initiative Scheme introduced by Labour which the NHS trusts are still having to pay for, investments which failed with the collapse of the banks, excessive expenditure made by middle managers who are responsible for the savings requested by the previous Con Dem coalition, and spending being made for unnecessary courses such as diversity awareness or celebrating Black History Month. There are plenty of savings to be made within these areas but trust seem unwilling to do so.
Putting aside the argument of too many immigrants/NHS would fall on its knees without immigrants, it is plainly clear that the NHS, and the rest of the emergency services and transport systems for that matter, have not expanded with the same pace as the population increase of this country.
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
I believe political choices have been made since 2010 to reduce the efficacy & efficiency of the NHS. Which is a logical move to make if you're a government with a desire to privatise. Combine that with an already increased use of the private sector & it looks even more deliberate.
My preference would be to have a public health service. Whether or not that's the best choice, it's looking fairly clear that the government disagrees.
The World Health Organisation, by their definition, don't class the UK as having a public health system anymore. Just through vague memories of timing I think that became official around 6 months ago.
Edit:
Here's an article from 10 months ago regarding the WHO's classification of the UK's health service.
I will note that it's an opinion piece.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...tion-the-uk-no-longer-has-a-nhs-a6923126.html
My preference would be to have a public health service. Whether or not that's the best choice, it's looking fairly clear that the government disagrees.
The World Health Organisation, by their definition, don't class the UK as having a public health system anymore. Just through vague memories of timing I think that became official around 6 months ago.
Edit:
Here's an article from 10 months ago regarding the WHO's classification of the UK's health service.
I will note that it's an opinion piece.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...tion-the-uk-no-longer-has-a-nhs-a6923126.html
Last edited:
- 87,636
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Thanks to both the way the NHS is funded and the way it effortlessly hurls money away, I would be very surprised to find out that is the case.
The average amount contributed to the NHS annually by a UK taxpayer is £4,000, so you'd end up contributing, across your working lifetime, around £150,000 (2016 pounds, of course).
There's not a great many medical procedures that cost that much, even for multiple course and even once you've taken into account the fact that the NHS pays over the odds for equipment and drugs. You might hit it if you've had a few courses of chemotherapy and a liver transplant. And no, the US doesn't have it any better with its insurer-led system that sees similar incredible price-gouging, but then for £4,000 a year out of your own pocket you could have some pretty serious health insurance.
It's a very small and very unlucky number of people who will experience sufficient ill-health to be a net drain on the NHS rather than a net contributor.
- 4,041
- Derbyshire, UK
- DG Silva
To date, I've had three operations on my right hand, including pinning the little finger out, and a complete skin graft. I've had 4 weeks in a specialist child's burns unit when I broke my arm (I had bad gravel rash on my right cheek as well), speech therapy between the age of 2-4, hearing tests every year from the age of 2-18, plastic surgeon check-ups every year from birth to 14, two sets of stitches and removal, a mild heart attack, pneumonia, endocrine surgery to remove half my thyroid, emergency surgery to remove a tooth plus three nights and countless bags of IV antibiotics, 4 years of prescription glasses, countless numbers of x-rays, etc.
Given that I've been earning a taxable pay for the last 15 years, at £4000 p/a, this would equate to around £60k. I would be amazed that the list above hasn't at least come somewhere close to my total 'donations' to the NHS coffers.
Last edited:
- 87,636
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'm unaware how the US system works with regards to A&E, however you'll note the very first part of the quoted sentence...
Even at NHS prices, you're probably getting close to half. Many of the things on your list are literally just someone's time, or a fraction of a cost of a piece of equipment being used. It'll get bumped up by your surgeries, but then even an actual heart transplant surgery is only costed at around £30k to the NHS. Chemo's the one that costs a packet, but even then if NHS trusts weren't busy pissing cash up the wall with masonic deals with 'preferred' partners (read: the ones that have MPs and ex-MPs on the board) it would cost even less (and would be used even less).
Of course the essential idea of the NHS is that you shouldn't be costing anything close to your contributions, because those who are wealthy enough to contribute are less likely to be ill enough to require it back. The notion is that poor health is often an outcome of poor living standards, and a nationalised health service thus exists to get the wealthy (or about 85% of us) to pay for the healthcare of those below the poverty line (or about 15% of us), because the wealthy can pay for decent private healthcare for themselves.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
As someone who has private medical, I'm unsure whether I'm doing the NHS "a favour" or not.
I've never used it for anything serious, to date only a knee investigation (getting an MRI within days as opposed to months) and a consultancy sign-off (see the same consultant with days as opposed to months). In both instances I was aware that I was seeing NHS consultants moonlighting at a private medical facility.
I've also used the NHS for what was arguably a cosmetic surgery at the time and is now almost impossible to have on the NHS. At no point did I play the system, I simply answered the questions and was surprised at what that eventually led too.
I've never used it for anything serious, to date only a knee investigation (getting an MRI within days as opposed to months) and a consultancy sign-off (see the same consultant with days as opposed to months). In both instances I was aware that I was seeing NHS consultants moonlighting at a private medical facility.
I've also used the NHS for what was arguably a cosmetic surgery at the time and is now almost impossible to have on the NHS. At no point did I play the system, I simply answered the questions and was surprised at what that eventually led too.
