ECCOnoob

Selfish arrogant people who have no responsibility because hey, they dont have to pay for it at source. Many of them not contributing into the system at all. You really find it so hard to believe.

Yes, because of modern day group practice has just one or two reception in charge of dealing with all calls 🙄🙄. You don't think theres maybe a whole team of administrators behind the scenes who also take responsibilities. Stop believing all GP surgeries are some quaint cottage style operation just like you see on the telly. As an example, my own GP has two branches, a centralised call system, an online booking system and it has a total of 18 members of administrative staff including 11 with the title receptionist.

I'm not defending them. I'm giving you the practical reality of big infrastructive projects from someone who has experience from a legal and regulatory side of how things work involving civil liabilities, damage recovery and institutional failures. This sort of thing happens all the time and there is not always a single point of failure or single person to blame. Previously unknowns are always being discovered on things. Budgets are always being amended or extended or breached. Nobody can predict absolutely everything all the time. Of course there are levels of consultation and due diligence and planning. But this particular structure was not digging down to create great vast foundations. It is not a massive building which is going to be in permanent situ. If the council complied with the set regulations then that's the end of conversation. For all I know, the council may have well been within their right to disregard the speculative concerns raised from Yorkshire Water and maybe had no obligation to change their plans whatsoever. However, for whatever reason they chosen to take such concerns on board, negotiate a compromise and make adjustment to their design. The Grant was extended to cover the cost of this and problem solved. I've really can't get my head round the drama with this no has anyone categorically demonstrated that it's the council themselves who are completely and unequivocally at fault.

Jesus Christ. The container park was, is and always will be a temporary attraction meant to fill some space and bring a little bit more footfall to an area which was slowing down. It's entire purpose was only ever to be a stop gap until the more substantial and permanent redevelopment work commences next year., With the containers themselves moving to another location in the city so they will remain being utilised. As for these stupid remarks about empty shop units, how many more times do we have to explain, the council do not own the empty buildings so they cannot on a whim just shove something in it. They don't have power to enforce a business to move into somebody else's property. Those empty buildings are already earmarked if not ongoing redevelopment right now. There is going to be several residential developments being built on fargate, including current proposals to convert the entire bottom corner fronting Church Street into multiple apartment floors. They're going to be building a large event, art and community space. There are blocks earmarked for leisure and restaurant space. There's going to be entirely new paving and street furniture and greenery all being funded by the major grant it bid and successfully was awarded from Central government. If you bother to read any of the masses of material out there it explains all about it. Cities are changing. They are not just some glorified shopping mall. If they didn't apply for all these grants, how long would it be before you'd be on here moaning about us not keeping up with our neighbours. Complaining about how our 'incompetent' council failed to take these grants and development opportunities like other cities did. Attitudes like yours are absolute fodder for things like Yorkshire live and the Sheffield Star. All we need is a sad face picture and we've got the set.

In this instance the Council and Yorkshire water. Why don't you get what I'm trying to explain to you. There isn't a single point of failure. There isn't one person to point the blame at. The council was under no obligation to consult with Yorkshire Water because the development they were building was a temporary structure. That was the law. The council are not mind readers so why on an earth would they have any indication that Yorkshire Water might have a concern over their underground equipment. As soon as Yorkshire water raised their concerns, the council acted. Yorkshire Water themselves were directly involved in the negotiations and the problem was sorted with a redraft and slight adjustment to the plans. It wasn't a 'waste of the grant'. Like I said, the budget was an estimate and the figure of the grant was adjusted to include allowance to resolve the previously unknown issue. What do you mean it will be "remembered by us". Don't include me in that. If you mean remembered by morons who don't have a single clue how major projects work and desperately try finding irrelevant and unreasonable things to complain about the council with, then knock yourself out.

What are you wanting? A parade through the middle of the street with the locals shouting shame? Someone's head on a block? Someone to be jailed? Somebody did take ownership and responsibility. They immediately consulted, reached an agreement and amended the plans. In any major project, plans change, budgets change. There are some things that can only arise later on in the development such as in this specific case where Yorkshire Water were not legally a statutory consultant because the structure was temporary. However, as soon as the issue arose, the council immediately actioned it. Just what more do you expect to happen. The council was working within the exact legislation they are supposed to. They didn't have a crystal ball to predict the concern that Yorkshire Water were going to be raising. As soon as the concern was raised, the council immediately actioned and changed the plans. Its hardly some great demonstration of gross negligence and wastage. They are plenty of other things you can pick to demonstrate that. Grow up and realise that not every single thing has a single point of failure. Not every single thing can be immediately predicted and prepared for. Not every single thing has a single point to place blame.

It has. It was well publicised when the Yorkshire Water issue first came out that the grant was extended. It has also been well publicised numerous times that regeneration of entire fargate is being heavily funded by 15m + government grants to redevelop high streets. Grants which I'm sure the same doom mongers would be whining about if the council didn't take them up But as we know, some people don't bother letting facts get in the way of a good anti-council rant.

It's absolutely disgraceful. Equates 25.6m appointments missed over the course of a year. 25.6m occasions when a GP or practice nurse is sat there with a gap in their schedule which could have been taken by another patient. 25.6m times when a resource has been wasted. I wish someone would do the maths and set out what that actually means in terms of cost of resources wasted and shove it in the face of all those point scoring MPs and over simplistic placard wavers who simply demand "give it more money". Like I said earlier, the failures of the NHS stretch far beyond simply blaming the Tories. It's about time some of the other mismanagement, abuse and wastage is brought into the spotlight. Including a bit of naming, shaming and penalising the very service users who take it for granted and also contribute to the waste of taxpayer moneys. There is too much detachment between our taxes and the NHS. If people were physically seeing their own personal money being frittered away, I doubt they would be so flippant about keeping appointments or making appointments they don't need or engaging in reckless things that then require medical treatment.

Deluded excuse making from a bitter jealous serial loser. ....... Don't know why system posted that twice but hey

For the same reason they invite like Julia Hartley Brewer or Diane Abbott or David lammy or Nick Griffin or Angela Rayner or Caroline Lucas. It's a debate program. They want people who are going to fuel and rough up and stir debate. They want people full of their own bluster so they have something to work with. Why do you think ANY topical discussion shows usually has two polarised positions from the biggest most obnoxious mouthpieces they can find. It's to give a debate some conflict and viewers keep interested. The vast majority of us fickle, ill informed general public don't want to see a load of dry, highly detailed, well researched, fact driven, polite conversation. We want oversimplification, hype, arguement and strong opinions that we can all sit there feeling either totally outraged about or gleefully agreeing with like some loyal tribe. We are simple creatures.

Personally failed seven times to win any seat in the general election. Headed up the Brexit Party and still failed to win any seats for any of its candidates. Now heading up the rebranded version "reform party" and still failing to make any sort of headway for any of its candidates in local government, let alone being a genuine threat in a general election. The man is a serial loser. It absolutely astounds me that the media keep giving him so much prominence when politically he is nothing. The one and only gimmick he had was the very same thing that he kept campaigning against (despite the fact it gave him a nice healthy salary for many years) and we have now left in any event. Except for being a low rent tabloid TV fodder and poster boy for the flag shaggers, I really don't understand the purpose of him.

Totally agree with this. I've always said that one of the contributing problems to the 'free' NHS is the appalling way he gets taken for granted then abused by many of its service users. What makes you say that? It's hardly beyond the realms of possibility. A busy group practice in a large suburb could easily have a few thousand patients on their roster. If just 3 or 4% of those appointments made are missed it could easily reach that 121 figure. There are plenty of serial offenders who treat the doctors surgery like some social club, booking appointments for trivial little things and forgetting all about it. Plenty of those without basic common sense to ring to cancel something they have pre-booked. Plenty of those booking appointments when they didn't. even need to see the doctor and could have their issue dealt with by somebody else. A risk of cancellation charges, red flag notices or some sort of pre-deposit for appointments due to reckless behavior or lifestyle choices or malingering would soon shape them up a bit. That's just the tip of the iceberg of the sort of abuse and wastage caused by it's users. Yes, we can all blame the government for the failures but that is only one part of the story. What about some of those on repeat prescriptions who hoard piles and piles of medication that they are not even fully using. My late grandmother was one of them. Receiving packs and packs of paracetamol as part of a wider monthly prescription - never thinking to tell the doctor that she didn't need all of it and to skip it off until the surplus ran down. I bet she certainly wouldn't have been the only one. What about all those cluttering up our emergency departments each and every week. All those drunken idiots, self-inflicted fight or fall injuries, boy racers who have ploughed their car into a tree, tweenagers flipping around their skateboards and BMX bikes without protection and smashing their face into a concrete block.... Do we really have to be bailing them out every week or is it about time we enforced a little bit of self-responsibility by risking them with charges or deductions or penalties as a result of such recklessness. At least in my world of legal, if negligence is found against a company and some bod gets a compensation payment, we get a nice little demand from the NHS and DWP seeking recoupment back to the state for treatment fees and benefits a person received whilst recovering. What about own deliberate negligence by members of the public? Shouldn't the NHS be able to recoup at least some of that back? Free at source is one thing but why should that mean literally having to pick up all the pieces for nothing when someone doesn't take self-responsibility.

What's that old concept. ...The left always whinge the BBC is nothing but a load of Oxbridge posh tory supporters acting as some secondary government mouthpiece. ...The right always whinge the BBC is nothing but a load of lefty liberal multicultural vegan ecomentalists preaching their wokish nonsense.... I guess that means they're pitching just about right.

To be honest these days that is not much of a big delay. A large bank with several call centres will be able to get through that within say 10 or 15 minutes wait. While it's not exactly ideal, it's not really the end of the world. I have certainly waited in call queues, even physical ones longer than that.

Bit of a difference comparing referendums that were nearly 40+ years apart to one that was only voted on less than 10 years ago. Besides, the bottom line is, no-one has said they will never ever be able to have another referendum. They are just saying that they will get one when the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland says so. In other words, little Miss Tantrum running the branch office tried to be clever and bypass Head Office approval. The court quashed it. Now time for her to get back in her box. No matter how much she likes to big herself up, she's running a devolved assembly with limited powers. She's still answerable to the Government of the nation that they chose to remain part of. Now she's got all that silliness out of her system, she might focus on some of her actual relevant issues. Reading some of the Scottish press and forums, she is hardly excelling in managing the little bits of control she does have. She really feels she's ready to run her own independent nation. Hmmm.

I've never said that either.

But you are not giving good reason as to why necessarily things shouldn't be outsourced. You seem to be letting your absolute blind hatred of anything profit making skew you. There are plenty of things that potentially could be done better, cheaper and more efficiently by other companies whose entire business is to provide X service or X product. If for example, Starbucks can provide visitor coffee bars cheaper and better than some in-house catering facility without all the associated cost of staff, equipment, insurance, stock coming out of hospital budget... Why shouldn't it? If a software company which has already got track record in providing a bespoke secure server for records management can provide a piece of kit to the NHS cheaper and more efficiently than some in-house IT bod spending 5 years and millions of pounds developing one. Why shouldn't they?

No, you can't. You are doing nothing more than speculating. Your lengthy volunteer involvement with the services is admirable. I'm also human so I give sympathy for the recent illnesses you have suffered and having to be on the other side of such services. But. With respect, doing voluntary service, casually chatting to patients and opinionated doctors does not translate to a full comprehensive unequivable understanding of the entire operational, regulatory, economic and political nuances of running a nationalised health system. Many of the examples you are giving in your post regarding procurement and purchasing an outsourcing highlight to me inefficiencies and incompetence within the organisation. Yes, we all know of the headline ones but there are thousands of legitimate lines of procurement going through every day. Besides, when blame is to be set for some silly, ridiculous expensive purchase, it's going to be one of those thousands and thousands of NHS administrators who made such decision. That includes the layers and layers of senior directors, heads of department, middle management and administrators are they really all necessary? When nurses and auxiliaries and porters are not performing, making mistakes or failing patient needs, can it really be so simple as to simply say they are rushed and understaffed. Is there not even the distinct possibility that not all of them are pulling their weight? Not all of them are properly following procedure or listening when they are given instructions? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that some of them have an 'I know best' attitude and disregard what they are told? All of that happens in other firms all the time, so it's hardly beyond reason that it could happen also within the NHS. Some of the criticisms raised by doctors make me feel they're hypocrites given a great many of them are more than happy to undertake private work or a little bit of paid speaking or lecturing or some medicolegal reports or some consultancy work whenever it's suits to earn a few bucks. Then we have multitude of GP clinics choosing to convert into self-employed partnership practices so they get to control their purse strings and earn far more than a regular salaried GP. That goes on far more than people think... Like I said earlier. Yes, I agree. It does need reform. A major one. But there is far more to this than the simplistic approach of blaming privatisation. There are many many aspects of that flabby, overused, mismanaged and IMO overfunded organisation that needs to be looked into.

Sod all to do with NHS reforms of course. Billions upon billions pouring into it every year at an every increasing rate. So your solution is taxes upon taxes and throw even more money at it. Bravo! Oh and what's this 'fair' you are talking about. Forcing corporations to be morally blackmailed into paying more than legally obliged to pay?Forcing the richest, who already contribute £3 in every £10 in income tax, to pay even more? Introducing some robin hood tax the penalise those who dared to acquire some assets and build up some investments so they have to pay even more tax on top of the tax they already previously paid on their assets and income? Yeah yeah heard it all before. You know what I think's fair. Suspending treatment or charging those who refuse to accept advice from medical practitioners and continue with their alcohol, high fat or smoking lifestyle. Charging for emergency treatment as a result of dangerous hobbies, self-inflicted negligence, or drunken violence. Applying penalties for those who fail to turn up for appointments without warning or malingerers taking the system for granted and wasting resources. Enforcement and harsher penalties for absentee parents who breed, split up and then expect the state to pick up the tab and prop up the unfortunate one holding the baby....

Stopped reading after that sentence. It is certainly not underfunded. It has had an ever increasing budget since it's inception with a report from a few years ago stating its annual budget has increased 12 times over since inception and now accounts for over 30% of all government spending. Have you stopped to think that perhaps it's not value for money because of some incompetence, inefficiencies, and waste caused by your precious public sector workers or perhaps those deluded union enshrined doctors and nurses continually making unrealistic pay demands and threatening strikes like clockwork every year... Have you thought about all those unnecessary additional services that the NHS seemingly now has to provide. All those quangos, side operations, lifestyle clinics, minority services which are arguably well beyond it's original scope of essential health care needs... Have you thought about perhaps the selfishness of its service users who are failing to take responsibility for the lifestyles, taking it all for granted, wasting time and resources, not contributing into the system and yet sitting there expecting the NHS to pick up the pieces for their irresponsibility... No, as per usual it's a one-sided arguement blaming everything as the fault of privatisation. Everything always the fault of greedy, profit making corporates. Everything always the fault of those rich, neoliberals blah blah blah. Yes the NHS is ripe for reform. Has been for decades. But if we're going to have the discussion, let's get real and consider full context. Let's stop putting it on a pedestal and banging on that somehow all it's operations are absolutely unequivocally vital. Let's stop portraying all its workers as if they are selfless angels. Many of them aren't. Many of them are simply doing a job which some would argue can be done cheaper and more efficiently. Many of them are coasting to retirement after spending decades on the gravy train working their way up the layers and layers and layers of gradings. Many of the services should quite rightly be in the private sector because there's no reason for the NHS to be spending vast amounts of money and resources keeping it in house and trying to recreate their own versions when other companies are far more established, far more skilled and far more efficient. In my opinion, this particularly applies to many of its administrative, auxiliary, catering and technical services. Stop always pushing some agenda. Your constant oversimplistic naive position that public sector = good. private sector = bad detracts from any actual genuine debate. Perhaps in that case, the wealthy should be able to decide whether they want to pay into the system whatsoever and have ability to opt out and choose to pay their own entirely private healthcare. Let's see how that would affect the tax revenue's into little Jimmy Crankies purse. I'm sure that would last long.

Well it didn't seem to be putting off the queue of people waiting to go on it this afternoon when I walked past. How many more times does this keep coming up. Its not being used as some great observation wheel for god sake. It's a bloody fairground ride which plenty seemed to be enjoying. Unless they're going to be mounting it on the roof of St. Paul's Tower or the top of Jawbone Hill just what stunning breathtaking views were you expecting? Moaning for moanings sake. Just like the hatchet job article that's floating about from the trash website Yorkshire Live. Some so-called journalist giving their critique all over the event, making ridiculous comparators and banging on that prices are cheeper in one of the pubs....... I mean God shock horror outstanding journalism that. Their next sensational exclusive story is going to be telling us telling us that food from a small convenience store is more expensive than a big supermarket 🙄 All I can say is that I have now twice been through it since it opened - once late evening after work and once this afternoon - both times, despite the weather, it's been really busy, plenty of people in the Alpine bars, the food vendor areas around peace gardens was rammed and even the container park had people in and out using the food vendors and shop. Bear in mind, It's only just opened and the Christmas nights out/ shopping weeks haven't really got going yet. I can't see it slowing down much. Even if it's not someone's personal tastes, can't we just be happy about something happening in the city bringing a bit of life.

Well that's fascinating but I never even questioned your work ethic. All I was trying to demonstrate was that sometimes using your own equipment or self-resources, under some belief of trying to save your employer a few quid, is not always a sensible or compliant thing to do.

Well I guess that's your choice. But be careful because your kind money saving gesture might one day backfire. For example, I can't use my personal phone for work purposes even if I wanted to. Because what I deal with is highly confidential and subject to a multitude of strict rules and compliances which could potentially jeopardise my practice certificate and career if I broke them. Everything I touch for work has to be wholly independent, secured, and strictly compliant with their systems. Also, using your own equipment as opposed to work equipment or authorised procedures to use external suppliers may invalidate your company's insurance. What about a scenario if your self-cleaning of the vehicles damaged it. Does your home insurance cover any outlay? What about if your repair to the vehicle causes a malfunction or accident or injury? It's not always that simple as just.....they are wastefully spending money..... That's before we get onto the fundamental point of why should anybody lay out their own expenditure where it's covered by the employer. It's expected there will be reasonable expenses and none of these cited seem anything near outrageous. Now when there are more claims for duck houses or lamborghinis or six ladies from Busty Barbara's Shack then there might be call for outrage.

For what though? Is it for her office or her second home accommodation. Like it or not, she might have been entitled to do so within the rules. Don't get me wrong, I detest Rayner with all my passion. A look on some other threads will show that. However, on this particular issue, I cannot jump in and suggest what is so wrong. Now if you're going to show me that it was for her own personal home and outside of the permitted rules, I may be in agreement with you.

I don't think these are particularly great examples of any outrageous demands to be honest. With the exception of maybe the phone case, most of these seem perfectly legitimate expenses which would be recovered by anyone else who has to work away for their jobs or has expenditure of running an office. The taxi fares, whilst there high amount, are hardly outrageous. If the person needed to travel to London and there was a train strike, what else could they do. Even if they had driven themselves, they will still be recouping a couple of £100s of mileage and/or insurance or car hire costs. Things like the Excel, video editing, subscription services, air conditioners, flags are all part of running their office or their accommodation.. There's been lots of debate before about whether there should be some sort of centralised service, but until that day happens, MPs are entitled to expense ruining their constituency offices through the system. I know that MPs are always public enemy number one right now, but we are hardly talking about duck houses and strip clubs here. Any large organisation has similar expenses as the ones above. There is always vast amounts of travel costs and sustenance costs and accommodation cost. MPs or not, why should they pay for business travel or their own office supplies out of their own pockets. Nobody else in an employee position would. The moment I step out of my home city on business need, everything I touch from travel to food to accommodation to cabs to internet to stationery is all expensed back to my company. Same as in organisations up and down the land.