In defence of Dally he actually named five categories of what he termed "low lives" but it was only the fifth one that other people automatically linked to the term "low-life" and came up with "racist".

I did not say people were low-lifes because they were not native-British but rather because of the way they treat A&E departments - putting themselves above others by not following the sysyem. Indeed, to suggest I was been racist is frankly libellous as I did not say it was exclusive to non-natives.

Sorry, that doesn't work.
You specifically singled-out non-Brit-born as the ones misusing A&E, no mention of the many Brit-born who do it.

Another untruth. If you are going to make statements as to what I did or did not say at least have the courtesy to be accurate.

OK, to be courteous, you said "non-Brit born (largely)".
And then, not much later, summarised to "lowlifes".

Drunks.
Drug addicts.
Kids having taken so called "legal highs"
Victims on drunken violence.
In certain areas, non-native Brits (largely) who wish to see a doctor but want to circumvent the GP system.

These clog up all A&E's especially Fridays and Saturdays. Something needs doing about the scale of the problem. One or two, yes but wholseale, no.

As this was Dally's post, he referred to all of these as lowlifes, so if I was you TB and ilk I'd learn to read instead of selectively quoting.

Either because that reflects their own prejudice or they are trolls. Possibly both.

I think it's more the fact that Dally specified "non-native Brits" that is the problem. Why not mention the "native Brits" who do the same? And I'd be interested to know which areas Dally is referring to, how a non-native Brit is defined, how he knows these people were non-native Brits, and is Dally himself a native or non-native Brit?

He described the ones circumventing the GP system as non-native Brits (largely).
Why did he draw attention to the ethnic origin of that group but not the ethnic origin of the drunks or the drug addicts etc?

My comprehension is fine, yours is limited to being able to read.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/23/private-health-contractor-999-callsThis is what happens when private profit comes before public service[/url

Serco have plenty of previous in manipulating responses in this contract

This was the state of the NHS under Labour. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21358905

This was the state of the NHS under Labour. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21358905

Quote ="Ajw71"This was the state of the NHS under Labour. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21358905'" actually, it wasn't. however, the silence around here is deafening. according to andrew neil, "4 other nhs trusts had worse death rates".

Quote ="Ajw71"This was the state of the NHS under Labour. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21358905'" actually, it wasn't. however, the silence around here is deafening. according to andrew neil, "4 other nhs trusts had worse death rates".

It is still not a reason to asset strip the NHS in favour of private providers

No, but if you can blame someone else for your inability to change things then that makes it alright, its supporter politics in the playground again.

However no-one in the coalition is blaming any other political party for what went on in Stafford, they are all well aware that it was down to local management and there is very little that a government can do with that localised situation other than watch the trends and sweep up afterwards.

No one in the current government is blaming the previous administration because they know full-well that a major contributory factor to the failings at Stafford were down to the drive for Foundation Trusts (another Thatcher baby). Stafford was an NHS Trust and was doing all it could to meet the standards for achieving Foundation Trust status. Unfortunately patient care was not a major priority in attaining Foundation Trust status, it was all about management and financials.

Interesting that Cameron is focussing on nurses pay, yet the 2@ who presided over the the Stafford tragedy has been rewarded with the whole of the NHS to bollox up. [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/06/david-cameron-nhs-nursesLINK[/url

It is indeed.
He always precedes his cuts with some sort of woolly preamble that is meant to appeal to the cash-strapped voter.
In reducing benfits, he gets the voter onside first with stressing that it's strivers versus skivers, then punishes both.
In increasing university tuition fees, he makes noises about it being unfair that the dustman pays for the toff's kid to go to university, then makes it too daunting for the dustman's kid.

In this case he's talkiing about nurses getting more pay only if they are compassionate.
Maybe I'm just cynical but I reckon it's the nice, warm, fluffy opening gambit to another way of cutting.
We shall see.

It'll be interesting to see how he proposes to measure 'compassion' in an objective and accurate enough manner to form the basis of a pay scale.

He clearly doesn't understand SMART targets.

It did occur to me too, wondering just how compassion is measurable.
Tick boxes for number of times the patient's hand is patted or fevered brow is stroked?

Of course it is. Give nurses more and more to do so they have less time to spend with patients, then point and say they're neglecting patients and slash salaries across the board. I think this is what they meant by transparency in government...

.
that makes no sense. though you've got your daily quota in at the end.
the coalition don't have to blame labour. the dates, the report point the finger at them. to do it in public would be seen as opportunistic. but all the targets, funding is sent down from government, a government obsessed with figures.

from the guardian.


from the beeb

HOUSE!!!

Care to prove otherwise?

Quote ="Ajw71"This was the state of the NHS under Labour. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21358905'" Because in 13 years of Tory rule we didn't have widespread issues with NHS care...

Quote ="Ajw71"This was the state of the NHS under Labour. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21358905'" Because in 13 years of Tory rule we didn't have widespread issues with NHS care...

or not. now, it is a lib dem making these claims. but i'm trying to find something martin lewis tweeted about it, still the only person in the public eye who has a remotely rational way at looking at them that i've seen.
[urlhttp://www.markpack.org.uk/38850/new-university-data-shows-everyone-was-wrong-about-tuition-fees/?utm_source=WordTwit&utm_campaign=wordtwit&utm_medium=referral[/url

prove that you don't invoke maggie to blame all of societies ills on? i'm not sure that would be possible.