You need to raise this with the practice manager – this sounds like a phone line fault (auto switching error) and is actually a significant critical incident for the practice. They may not be aware of it….

DrP

Obviously you live on a different planet to your patients Doc. As you may have noticed there is little sympathy for your no show predicament. Most peoples experience of a GP’s surgery nowadays is pretty damn negative.

Appointment system: Phone after 8:30 to make an appointment fot that day. Really **** helpful if you happen to have the discourtesy to work some where else and start before 8:30. My experience is once I actually get through, which on average takes no less than 18 minutes of constant calling, the answer is invariably I can get you in in 15 minutes can you get here then? When I say I’m actually at work and it will take me at least half an hour thats answered with a sigh and well thats all we’ve got available. So the obvious next step being can I make an appointment for another day. Answer No! Phone tomorrow at 8:30. When pressed, they will give an appointment. The soonest I’ve been offered to date was in 24 days time!!
So I wrote to the practice manager. I got a reply full of patronising platitudes back. Basically saying how I as a mere mortal couldn’t possily understand the complexity of the demands on Doctors and more still their support staff.

To me its blatantly obvious that if there is a 24 day wait for a pre booked appointment, there will obviously be no shows, (they’ve probably snuffed it while waiting to be seen) and more so there aren’t enough prebooked appointments available. I am not alone in working away, about 95% of the working age population of my village are in the same boat.

Every morning there is a queue outside the surgery trying to beat the jammed phone lines that can’t cope. In fatct when I asked about that the half wit practice manager did admit that it was an issue for them, becuase all the demand comes at once….. (no shit sherlock!) Unfortunately, he couldn’t see the connection between the idiotic appointments system, no shows, and jammed lines. Let alone the increase in stress related problems with the reception staff who have to deal with irate patients.

Do you know, I couldn’t even get a timely appointment for my wife who is in recovery from breast cancer???

If anyone ever asks me again “is it an emergency?” I’ll **** scream “no you halfwit, if it were I would have dialled 999 and have been half way to A & E by the time you answered this **** phone.

The system is bust. Don’t come on here and moan about it. Fix it.

PS: My wife who also works, normally takes the first appointment of the day at the lcoal cancer unit. The earliest she has been seen is 25 minutes late. One time ti was 2 1/2 hours!! I’m sure there is a logical explanation somewhere, but it probably invovles the phrase “couldn’t organise a clusterfeck in a brothel”

…… and yes I am pished off with it.

if scotland gets independance will i get dual nationality

Quite.

So how about we define Scottishness and what entitles someone to a Scottish passport?. It can’t simply be residence, as that then means that anyone of any nationality can be a jock, simply through location. In fact there may well be a minority of people in the country who were born there. Judging by my immediate locality there are literally thousands, probably millions of ex pat jocks throughout the UK, so what about them? Are they excluded from Salmonds vision?

What about me? Father being a Scottish Borderer, Mother from Penrith?

Personally, I’m all for devolution of government, and less centralisation, but in a world of increasing globalisation does this Little Scotland idea actually make any sense?

I’ve been struggling to see this one overnight. Can you explain camo please. No issues, but having lived there all my life the humour in it has passed me by.

camo16 – Member
Yeah, I like all those small weird ones, but Ipswich remains my enduring comedy town.

Personally my absolute favourite is Fryup in the North Yorkshire moors… the marketing opportunties are endless.

Berm

Fair enough, but bear in mind the original offence had nothing to do with sexual abuse, and that the subsequent offences are very much related to those who have also been abused against. That immediately puts an entirely different perspective on the complexity of the whole problem. Lock em and throw away the key does nothing to improve the situation either directly or indirectly.

perhaps not the best example…..

Depends if you agree with locking up children who are below the age of criminal responsibility for life without reveiw as a reasonable way for a civilised society to behave. Personally, my overwhelming feeling in respect of those two is what on earth have they been through to create a situation that results in that awful outcome, and what can we do to prevent the waste of one young life becoming the waste of three.

Looking at this dispassionately I am having trouble understanding why this relatively minor change is such a big deal or am I missing something?

Read Charles Bronsons book. It explains it way better than I can, but in general its because the removal of all hope basically dehumansies the inmates. That then leads to behaviours which are extremely difficult to deal with let alone control. i.e. how do you punish someone who is already at the maximum limit of what can be done to them? Therefore the concept of leaving some hope that there is an alternate outcome is actually more of a control mechanism for the system rather than any realistic opprtunity for parole. i.e. there is still something else we can take away while there is hope.

Thus my earlier comment. i.e. do not pander to public opinion, and do take the advice of those who have to deal with these people daily.

I think the reality is that the Sun and Daily Mails readership should not be pandered to in policy making. The reality is that the management of the prison population is by consensus to a great extent. If you have people in there who have no hope whatsoever of any kind, what chance is there of actually managing them. It would be worth reading Charles Bronsons autobiography in this context.

So overall I think policy should be made by those who understand what is going on in reality with a modicum of steerage from the politicos. It should not ever be to pander to the uninformed.

I flipping hate the use of the word Metric in a pseudo intellectual bullshit bingo attempt to imply that the originator is somehow wise and deeply intelligent. It should be consigned to the bin along with ridiculously bright (normally red) braces.

The problem here is that the whole system is based on an archaic antiquated concept of the big cheese handing out goodies to the slightly smaller cheeses so as to keep them onside and thus the big chesse on top of the heap. Therefore not surprisingly popular things are at the top of the list simply as a form of opiate to the masses as good old Karl used to put it.

Personally I just think the whole honours thing needs kicking into touch and replacing with a merit based system, as opposed to a patronage based one. Might be an idea to start with an independant panel to reveiw proposals that can be made by any member of society.

As far as Murray is concerned? Well I guess he has done something that merits recognition, and definately more so than the likes of the Thatcher offspring for example, so probably at some point would be my observation.

This entire thread is the product of **** TV. (Judgemental: Yes, but, True: Definitely)

You lot need to get out more.

Besides whats wrong with Mercedes-Chardonnay for a girl?

The “they’ll all leave” theory is based on the 1960’s when the top rate of reached an eye watering 95% sort of level. (Mind you, you had to take a shed load of dosh before you got to that level.)

Personally, I have very mixed feelings about personal taxation. I do think we should all pay our fair share. The argument kicks in around about the point you try to define fair.

I’ve come from the very bottom of the pile, (i.e. just before I was born my parents lived in an old bus in a field with 3 children, and the arrival of a 3 bed council house was a huge leg up for them from there, for which I’m very grateful). I guess now I’m somewhere in the middle of the pile, a director of a small business in which I have 10% of the shares. I don’t get to the 40% tax band, and I don’t live in the lap of luxury, but I wouldn’t say I go short.

The bottom line is that we all have to pay for what we receive one way or another. So personally, I’m very happy to pay for all the services, including those I might not use, but are there if I need them. However, I do also provide jobs for a number of people, pay very handsomely to my local authority for next to no services (when compared to a domestic rate payer). I also pay considerable tax on my companies profits, (which is not necessarily as simple as people think, in that there is not a huge pot of cash somewhere, generally our profits are measured in a value of stock or something which we have reinvested into the business). Plus I pay tax on my earnt income etc etc etc. So I can see why sometimes people appear to pay very little, but feel that they pay a lot, and perhaps in reality do.

So its a very difficult discussion and not at all straightforward, and that is all I’m saying about it.

Regarding the OP. I have been there and done that in my lifetime, and it does frighten me that once again it is necessary. I guess my whole attitude is encapsulated by the state of our roads. I understand the need to cut back, but by christ theres a massive time bomb developing thats going to cost us very dear in the future. Same applies to social costs of benefit bashing IMHO.

Conservatives on Essex County Council claim lorries in the outside lanes are contributing to congestion.

I think the clue is in this sentence. Just the latest of a long line of things that aren’t well thought out, but probably one of the less disastrous when compared with the impact of many of the others.

How do you square that with the fact Syrian oil production is insignificant on a global scale and was (pre-crisis) estimated to hit zero net exports by the end of the decade? Your analysis is too reductive.

READ!

its about influence in the region and energy resources

Care to name who you think these people might be ?

Nope, I’m not about to get pulled into a debate about a specific point in a general argument.

However, what I will say is that the simple fact is that everyday all of us in the West benefit very directly from the projection of power, diplomatic, financial, or military onto those less powerful than ourselves. Pretending to get into your high chair over it really is a bit wet. There are no end of ways to combat that situation, but the truth of it is most of us, myself included don’t bother, and even those that do, don’t bother nearly enough to be taken seriously.

Re: the OP… Goes without saying IMHO.

Re: the rest of the discussion, its about influence in the region and energy resources. Assad is pro Russian, whereas the Saudis are pro US kind of thing, so its actually a whole hullabaloo about scant resources. Ever so easy to get all chintzy about the innoncents being slaughtered, but I wouldn’t mind betting that a good few subscribers to this thread would turn a complete blind eye, if by supporting one side to muller the other, your annual energy bill were to stop going up.

If it wasn’t in the name of religion, they’d just find something else to misbehave under the banner of.

Maybe they will, maybe they wont however a reading of the Koran hardly leaves them short of justification.

Just enjoying the irony as the thread has moved on the the EDL who clearly have found another banner to misbehave under

Seems like “the west” have a lot to answer for in the state of things as they are now within the world.

The own goal that is the oxygen of publicity being just one of those!

Basically, Terrorism, is on a par with Judo, it is the art of using your opponents strength against him. Whilst I don’t subscribe to any religious view there is a lot of sense in the teaching, “turn the other cheek”. Worth remembering that while we are collectively handing these loons their nasty little victory.

Tragedy all round.

Recently read up on the exploits of and the issues leading up to Vasco Da Gama getting himself round the cape to India. Seems like “the west” have a lot to answer for in the state of things as they are now within the world. Great shame that as a result the extremists on both sides seem to hold sway over the passive majorities, whom I’m sure left to their own devices could find a civilised way forward.

been mentioned on here by several people, thinking about it it’s possibly not a bad shout, tho I think there would be a lot of opposition. Too much scope for abuse?

But I’m with Berm Bandit there. Why shouldn’t platonic relationships be able to benefit in the same was a married partners. In fact, why should married people get any special benefits?

I’m not sure how this would achieve special benefit or could be abused. The point is simple. There is no easy civil legal form for the joint ownership of property without being married. The concept of a civil partnership should IMHO be about two or more people forming an agreement to take joint responsibility in law for something or other, no more, no less. So for example a student let. Generally the agreements will be between one individual and the owner, not with the complete group. If there is a problem the owner goes after the lead name, not the entire group. It’s then down to the lead name to sort it out with the members of the group. If you try to buy a house likewise, generally there will be a lead name on the documents. The idea is that in a partnership you are jointly and severally liable for whatever it might be. This is not a one way transaction though, as it makes it easier and more equitable for people to enter into a project together. That is all, there are no undertones to it. As I say the problem is the concept has been used for something that it shouldn’t be, and as can clearly be seen can’t be discussed without getting into ludicrous accusations.

The debate was always about about allowing a union[ marriage or civil partnership] between same sex people they never changed it -it was not a campaign to allow your “healthy idea” that got stolen by gays

What I actually said was that the civil partnership thing was a fudge and not the real issue, it was actually about “gay marriage” which is where we are now. Thus the very sensible idea of being able to form a legal entity to deal with joint ownership of property became waylaid by that argument.

i.e. civil partnership is in reality a non gender issue of some value, which was used by the politicos to fudge the larger issue of gay marriage, which is where we are, (quite rightly IMHO), now.

So thank you very much for putting me right, but please keep your accusations of homophobia to yourself.

the pink pew.

Just cleaning the tea off my keyboard. Defo favourite phrase of the week.

allowing flatmates to marry purely to avoid taxes

Actually, this is the bit that really boiled my wee when they did the fudge over the civil partnership. I think there is a very strong case, especially now, for a civil partnership, in much the same way as there is partnership in business. It is absolutely commonplace to see people sharing property and signing up to legally binding agreements, but there isn’t any real legal basis for it, so it always ends up being one or other being liable for whatever it is. Most especially now that most people have figured out that the religious structures are an utter crock and don’t bother with getting married. Unfortunately, that entirely healthy idea got waylaid by the gay lobby changing it into a thing about sharing bodily fluids as opposed to property and liability as such, which was a shame IMHO. The current debate is the right one for them IMHO and generally I’m in favour of it.

the whole thing is driven by trying to attract votes

I’m not 100% certain, but isn’t that the whole idea underpinning the concept of democracy? 😯

Personally, I thought that with Church attendances the way they are, the churches would snatch the gay arm off for their support, likewise any party to whom 10% of the population would be an attractive vote to have.

Regarding equality, I can’t get married in most Churches, because I don’t subscribe to their beliefs. Personally quite comfortable with that, and whilst I do believe they are seriously missing out by not having me, I don’t feel discriminated against, anymore than I do that I’m not eligible to become king….. that’s a lie actually, that one really boils my pee!

So there we have it, not being accepted into an arcane and irrelevant club doesn’t really matter, however state sponsored discrimination does.

Alternative 1) Fit bird with biffa mate syndrome… (makes her look even fitter innit?)
Alternative 2) Hung like a donkey

Point of grammatical order here re the OP.

It is never correct to use the word “planning” in the same sentence as the name Michael Gove, unless proceeded with the words “lack of”.

Thank you.

mefty – Member
Many of his policies seem pretty sensible to me.

……and does your carer know you’re on the interent again?

Be off with you back to the Pikey thread so we can start childishly bickering again!!

…..Pikey Thread ???? 😯

……. not yet closed????? 😯 😯

………Where???? 😯

………..I want some of that!!! (my prejudices are getting dusty)

education badly needed a shake up

Really? I tell you what Education needs, and thats what Alex Ferguson gave Man U….. a long period of stability under someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and who will go out to bat for what is right, as opposed to what grabs cheap headlines in the Mail.

To continue the analogy, until it is taken off the political football pitch and dealt with sensibly and rationally it will only deteriorate, somewhat like a matchball that is in perpetual use.

Is that an open offer?

You don’t know me very well do you…. check the monica fella ……. where’d you want to meet?? 😯

the left may take the blame for the sexual revolution,

I do beg your pardon…. I think you will find the vast majority of iffy sexual practices emanate from the toffs my friend. Me, I’m a council house boy, and its “a little something for the weekend sir”, missionary position, and that while she finishes her chips and half of mik stout, while watching the lottery show! Sexual Revolution? My arse!

Its interesting isn’t it?

Tory boys profess to be all about personal responsibility and choice yet they lock up more people for breaking the rules than anyone.

They profess to be in favour of small government and therefore low taxation, yet invariably when they are in the majority pay more and receive less.

I am starting to suspect that the truth is that they a bunch of self opinionated, self serving twunts. Could be wrong of course, but the evidence does seem to be stacking up a bit.

I live in hope (the state of mind not the place)……..

rather than expectation.

I think the key issue in this thread is MR16, i.e. low voltage as opposed to GU10 mains voltage. The GU10 stuff is much more stable for the reason oldgit has stated. Basically the lamp has a driver built in, so all those issues are covered straight off. I’d still steer well clear of dimming personally, but thats a personal call.

So thats the answer to the questions about G4’s and G9’s in my opinion. Regarding selling to the public, its a case of the worn out turks head …….. we’re a distibutor to the trade, and its a problem for me to do that, but all the advice above, which is pretty much on the money all the way through the thread should see you right.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(A Frayed Knot 8) )

Any limits on how long a list I can have ?

You covered it in your post.

You’ve got a dimmer designed to vary the current. LED’s are very susceptible to current fluctuation, again as you’ve mentioned (constant current drivers), so the fact is that when you add the two things together you’ve got a recipe for problems, especially when you have such low loads. (i.e. a 1 watt variation on a load of 50W is 2%, on 7W its 14.28%, so not surprisingly it has a different impact)

The development of LED lighting has been rapid. Until recently it was to provide a light source similar in output to Halogen that didn’t make you look like you were on a mortuary slab. Right now its for a dimmable solution. I import a range of high quality LED downlights purported to be dimmable, we choose not to advertise that as a feature. Experience shows that even in ideal conditions all sorts of anomolies occur as you describe. We have hunted high and low for a suitable dimmer, and to date have not found one that works in all conditions.

Personally I wouldn’t go anywhere near an LED replacement lamp, unless they are a top brand, as the power supply issues are just too likely to cause you problems. My inbox is full of offers of these things from every two bit factory in the Far East, and I guarantee one thing, and that is that 99% will be utter crap.

You really are making a leap from what I said to get to what you just posted .

No…. sorry I am not. Its very direct.

You are saying his charity work has benefited many, I and many others including the trustees of the very charities he founded are saying that he used it as a shield for his paedaphilia and to gain access to the vulnerable.

With that in mind I am simply asking if you are actually saying that there is a trade off between good works and evil ones that tips the scale? I rather hope you aren’t in fact.

My simplistic perspective, is that I’d would prefer that money had never been raised and that not one of his victims had suffered at his hands in return. That in my opinion would be the only satisfactory outcome.

because of his charity work many people have benefitedbeen exposed to abuse when they should have been protected and safe

FTFY

In fact to put it more bluntly, how many little boys or little girls whose lives have been ruined do you reckon is acceptable then? Where do you draw the balance…. are you really actually therefore saying that there is an equation where A = Abuse and £x = funds raised and is expressed as

A/£x = 0 ?????

Really??? Are you????

If you ever wanted a timely reminder of how these bastards get away with stuff because no one believes the kids and how thats now changing this is it.

So all his charity work , Stoke Mandeville hospital etc counts for nothing now does it ?

Yep, call me old fashioned and I don’t know about you, but the fact he was using it as a way to access the vulnerable to satiate his own filthy desires does rather undermine its value IMHO. I guess that may well by why the trustees of the various charities concerned have chosen to wind them up quick sharp. Whatderyer reckon?

Tell you whats mad crazant…. a society where am atmosphere has existed for 45 years where someone who has been the victim of one of the worst imaginable crimes agaisnt the person has not felt able to come forward and receive support and ultimately justice.

If there was only one good thing about Jimmy Savilles vile life, its that he has now created an environment where people are listening to these things and not just brushing them under the table. Think Stuart Hall….total denial, but eventually faced with a litany of complaints from people who could not possibly have compared notes and have delviered pretty much identical accounts of his behaviour he has been forced to cough to it. I hope he spends his remaining days in precisely the way he deserves, along with the rest of these callous twunts.

……and breathe