Marmora Man

Certainly the bomb that fell on the boundary between my house and that of the adjoining Therapia Road is not recorded in the correct spot - the nearest red blob being approximately 100 yards too far west.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone has an axe to grind! No - just trying to correct some ill informed speculation.

Edcam wrote: "I also agree that the training and protocols in place at the hospital are obviosly shockingly bad (especially considering the price attached to being a patient there.) As someone else said, this would be highly unlikely to happen in an NHS hospital." Is this based on a detailed knowledge of the independent healthcare sector and healthcare in general or some vague prejudice against private healthcare? 1. The training and protocols at King Edwards are of a high standard - I was involved in a project that looked very closely at the hospital less than a year ago. 2. No amount of training, protocols or policies can preclude human error - which is essentially how the two nurses concerned let slip the confidential information - something that would not have happened but for the poorly judged actions of the DJs. 3. To cite the NHS as an example of good management where mistakes are not made is risible - North Staffs, Pembury and countless other NHS hospitals have over many decades demonstrated that the NHS is not immune to slack management, poor levels of care, errors and mistakes. Only last week the Chief Nursing Officer was calling for more care and compassion from NHS nurses. Finally altho an independent hospital King Edwards is, in fact, less costly than the majority of other independent hospitals in London - offering free and discounted services to serving and retired military personnel as well as general acute services to al. Try the HCA / BMI or Spire groups for premium pricing.

Hugo, You position appears to be that there is nothing that can be done? I agree completely that LadyD's version is impractical and, despite my libertarian tendencies,I do not advocate totalitarian free market capitalism. However, to suggest that there are not areas of government spending that can be reduced, trimmed or completely dispensed with is just ridiculous. Yes it's lovely that DCMS is prepared to subsidise an arts group on Merseyside / Norwich / Clapham or some public art in Newcastle and a dance group in Tottenham or wherever - but to suggest that proposing to reduce such spending is "proof of the absolute necessity of civic protection" is hyperbole and plain wrong. Since the 50s we have been gradually taught to rely upon the State rather than ourselves and to look to the State for far too much. Now we are in a position where the State cannot afford current spending - let alone future spending as demographic changes skew the age profile of the population. If you acknowledge that the country is currently spending more than it is raising in taxes and that it is subsidising this continued structural spending by borrowing then it becomes paramount that spending and taxation must, over the medium term, be balanced. Since taxes are already high, and getting higher the only answer is to reduce the spending. I agree that trimming a bit here and cutting back a little there and fudging future spending plans by reducing the rate at which it grows are not enough. Which is why a more fundamental zero based budget approach and discussion would be helpful. It has been done before and the appointment of Mark Carney may signal such an approach to come post the 2015 election.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- No one should be able to get anyone's private medical information ever over the phone improperly. This fact alone suggests a significant failing in hospital procedures and for me at least is the most worrying part of the incident. It is a professional responsibility of all clinicians - doctors, nurses, physics, radiographers etc to respect patient confidentiality and not discuss medical conditions with anyone, even close relatives, without the patient's permission. All hospital will reinforce this but they cannot ensure it without individual clinicians taking responsibility. So the divulging of private medical information it is not / was not a failing of hospital procedures - it was an individual failing. However, I come back to my earlier point. It was the Australian DJs tha t are responsible. The first nurse (the one that has sadly died) was hoaxed into believing she was speaking to the Queen - she probably told the ward nurse this who, as a result, assumed that there was authority / approval for her to pass on the information. The situation may also have been affected by a degree of reverence for or awe of the royal family in the hospital.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wealth divide envy? May be a reason but not an excuse

Hugenot said "It's rather besides the point anyway - government spending is on things like welfare, pensions, healthcare and education. If you want to reduce government spending, these are the only expenditures you can really target. And of course we won't do that - so the debate is redundant." But it is possible to debate how much government spends on each of these areas and what value for money its spending achieves. From personal experience I know the Department for Health is appalling at managing its resources, Defence procurement is woefully inadequate with MoD paying way over the odds for poor equipment. Additionally, there's a lot of government spending outside of these areas that could be reconsidered. For example: 1. This weekend the Charities Aid Foundation is decrying the fact that up to 75% of British charities will suffer as government cuts its donations / spending with charities. Question: Should government be recycling taxes into charities? It may be an efficient way of targeting government support to specific recipients - I don't know but somehow it doesn't seem right to me. 2. Many question the need to spend as much on overseas aid as Britain does - circa ?7bn and rising. Personally, I believe that much of the spend is worthwhile for the "goodwill" and raised profile of Britain overseas, paying for itself in increased exports and an improved overseas trade balance - but I'd be very happy for the whole sum to be audited and the spend, perhaps, reduced. 3. As a retired military man I'm perhaps more likely to support Defence spending - but I accept it needs to be in proportion to the country's ability to pay. As a starter I'd prefer to see commitments reduced to match resources and there is a debate to be had about whether Britain needs / wishes to have a thin but worldwide presence or a more localised, and less costly, defence force. 4. Are we sure the Department for Culture, Media & Sport actually delivers anything worthwhile for its budget? 5. Ditto - Department Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? 6. Ditto - Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? 7. With devolution what significance do the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland offices have?

There was an interesting, if frustratingly curtailed, Newsnight article on what the state should and should not provide. The introduction and hypothesis was better than the subsequent debate - but the question posed was worth considering. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pbp3x/Newsnight_07_12_2012/

Most of us pay more tax than we have to anyway. If government spent the taxes raised more wisely it could tax us less.

"Root cause analysis" of this situation would reveal the hoax telephone call as the trigger - without that nothing would have occurred and this debate would not be happening. Other failings were evidently a lack of a good 24/7 screening process and a lack of professional competence on the part of the nurse that actually did divulge medical information - but these were secondary issues and affected the scale of the consequences and did not cause the event. Any defence based upon "I didn't know / expect / think that my prank would have tragic consequences" or "their processes should have detected and stopped me" are simply trying to shift blame from the originator. Rather like an arsonist acknowledging he started the fire but blaming the building's lack of an automatic fire suppression system and the fire brigade's late arrival for the subsequent damage.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was her job. She caused a breach of Medical > Confidentiality. Very Serious even if she wasn't > told off Which I don't believe. She was > humiliated, looked a fool and jeopordised her job- > which included her home. The real blame should be > with the Management. When someone so important is > in the hospital they should establish a procedure > to prevent fakers getting through. Its not as if > Journos haven't used phone trickery to get stories > in the past or I did I dream it? 1. The nurse in question did not reveal any medical details - she passed on a call from a hoaxer. 2. I know the CEO of the King Edward's hospital - I am absolutely certain that if he said there was no disciplinary action taken then there wasn't. 3. Yes - management should have put in place protocols to prevent improper access to VIPs. I would be most surprised if there weren't any. The usual process for contacting, or being contacted by, any member of the royal family would involve a member of the royal household - the hoaxers, however, called during a night shift and spoke to the senior nurse in charge and fooled her. So the major fault lies with the hoaxers and not management. 4. As others have pointed out - this incident, while sad and distressing, must have come on top of other problems that the nurse was experiencing - alone it is surely unlikely to have led to a, presumed, suicide.

Whoa - I'm not proposing to dispense with our current democratic political model and move to some pre-lapsarian perfect anarchic state. I'm responding to Quids original note that suggested that it was entirely possible to be a libertarian but not a rabid US style Tea Party fanatic. To confuse a phrase used by a psychologist in a short article as a diagnosis of sociopathology is a tad extreme. My example of how it is possible to arrive at a conclusion that various "isms" are non-utiltarian through a rational and "coldly calculating" review which, happily, matches the same conclusion that perhaps a less rational and more emotional person would also reach was an illustration NOT a recipe for tackling all society's ills or other issues.

Coming late to this thread I echo Quids comments immediately above and equally resent the tendency to assume that anyone that does not espouse the correct left"ish" / progressive views is an unthinking thug without a shred of decency. A recent example of the degree to which the left"ish" demonise and pillory their opposition is the thread about the new royal pregnancy. I am a self professed libetarian. I prefer self reliance, small government and strong defences (the last policy not being, definitively a libertarian stance but one that arises from my personal history. I have no wish to be told what to do and equally no wish to tell others what to do Hugenot critiques the libertarian "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions as sociopathic ? I would counter that it doesn?t matter so much how one arrives at a sensible / optimum / utilitarian outcome so much as reaching it. So while I, a self professed libertarian, may not have engaged my emotional / feminine side to decide that racism / sexism / and other intolerant behavior is ?morally? wrong ? I can arrive at the same position by coldly calculating that is serves no useful purpose to exclude anyone from society / the team / the interview / my party. My libertarian instincts go further with regard to this - intolerance on grounds of sex, race, religion etc is non utilitarian and therefore not to be countenanced - but so is, I would argue, special pleading or positive discrimination an often besetting sin of the more compassionate / emotional left with the Polly Toynbee's talking down to the "poor", the "discriminated against" or other minorities that she feels stand in need of her special, high minded and strangely off putting pleading.

dulwichtoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No not thinking about Souter more kanagaroo like. Perhaps there's nothing to report - and a more responsible attitude has prevailed with a reluctance to spread unsubstantiated rumours?

dulwichtoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The internet makes all of this redundant - for > instance this man in his 80s from Berkshire who > was pulled in with the Savild enquiry - not a peep > in the press but a quick google will reveal his > (well known) name in a trice.How come DLT ,Freddie > Starr et al get their names plastered all over > trhe place and this gentleman gets the news > blackout ? If you're referring to Michael Souter his name did make the press briefly, but as he's hardly high profile - a local rather than national BBC presenter the story didn't last long. Not a cover up, merely a reflection of relative degrees of celebrity / fame.

The Ministry of Defence in the early 80s rationalised its typing services by establishing an off site "typing pool" in the Midlands. All letters and papers were written in longhand, couriered to the pool, typed, couriered back to the originator in Whitehall, corrected, couriered back to the Midlands, retyped and recouriered back to Whitehall. To avoid too much recycling of work up to two, minor, typos per page were permitted along with a further two snowpaked corrections using biro. Bear in mind much of this paperwork was classified and required various levels of security controls and supervision. It could take two weeks to compose and post a response to a simple query or report from a ship's Commanding Officer. Delays were endemic and complicated issues would involve months of laborious correspondence. The introduction of computers in the late 80s changed the culture dramatically - tho watching senior officers two fingered pecking and their subsequent confusion with pre GUI computer interface was amusing.

Most of the failures of the press that led to public outrage and the eventual creation of the Leveson Enquiry were, as you and most others acknowledge, criminal under existing law. Phone Hacking ? illegal Harassment - illegal Police bribery ? illegal Libel ? illegal You ask me (and Quids) what we propose as an alternative to the imposition of yet more legislation and legal oversight. My answer is that nothing more needs to be done than to encourage the proper authorities to apply current laws more rigorously. As for such sensitive souls such as Hugh Grant or Charlotte Church and even those with more cause to complain such as the McCann and Dowler families ? the intrusion into their private life, where it does not cross the line into illegality, is a, perhaps, unfortunate but necessary part of maintaining a free press. Ideally the paper based media will change its game and become a little more caring and careful in McCann / Dowler situations ? under current public pressure and the possibility of state regulation there appears to be a readiness to take action on this and replace the discredited PCC with a better form of self regulation. This I support. On the other hand, adopting Leveson?s report would make it permissible to interfere with the freedom of the press ?for a legitimate purpose? which is ?necessary in a democratic society?. Leveson has proposed a regulator that while not part of the state would be established and validated by the state and conform to criteria set down by the state. Do you not sense a whiff of state control in those few, apparently innocuous, phrases? Leveson also appears to see the press and an identical, corrupt and immoral leviathan ? but you and I know there are essential differences between the reporting of the Times, Guardian and Telegraph and that of the Sun, Star and Mirror. I would turn to the first three for, reasonably unbiased (tho? politically coloured) reporting of national and international events ? I would pick up the latter in the barbers as a distraction for 5 minutes. I believe the press plays a useful role in pointing out the failures and failings in many areas of life; recent examples include MP expenses scandals (Telegraph and others), cricket match fixing (NoW), Sergeant Nightingale (Sunday Telegraph), Stephen Lawrence murderers (Daily Mail), Toxic waste in Africa (Guardian), tax dodging (The Times) ? even the Sun and Star play a role in highlighting how base, selfish and idiotic some celebrities are, from football players to TOWIE ?stars?. We would do ourselves a disservice if we created a statutory regime that somehow lessened the likelihood of such stories seeing the light of day. A muzzled guard dog is an ineffective guard dog. Or as Quids has put so well - an obnoxious and irreverent press is far preferable to a quiescent state licensed press. ETA: Signing a petition at the request of the campaigning organisation putting the petition forward and without careful thought would be a foolish action.

Please explain how "legally backed press regulation" will be independent of politicians given that politicians will have to enact, and will then have the opportunity to modify, any legislation. I consider the Hacked Off campaign of demanding the entire Leveson Report be implemented without change to be too simplistic. Levenson is merely a well connected member of the legal profession - he is not omnipotent nor incapable of error.

No it was sent to me as a link and I was taken aback that the sender felt it would strike a chord. I left it without comment to see what others thought. About the only thing I agree with is that much of the debate is wrong headed and pointless. The various issues / incidents / events that led to the Levenson report were illegal and improper under existing laws. The orchestrated campaign to establish a "statutory regulation" to under pin a stronger self regulatory regime might have some, minimal, impact but I don't see it persuading the press to eschew illegality any more post its introduction than before. I don't like the idea of statutory legislation - however minimal. It does imply some form of licensing by government which I would abhor.

??

For a rather idiosyncratic view on this see http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle698-20121125-06.html

I don't understand but Marmora appears to be on a route home from a pub and perhaps these events are alcohol inspired?. I often hear late night revellers walking past - yet Marmora Road is not really on any walking route between two points.

A few strange goings on - we had 5 cyclamen stolen from front garden on Saturday and all bins on "even " number side had their lids opened.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You cannot be Archbishop of Canterbury if your > parents weren't married when you were born > apparently- (I don't know about bishops though.) > This increasingly rules out large swathes of men > (let alone women) from becoming A of C. The church > is an anachronism and there seems to be an > unspoken rule that it is churlish to criticise > religion. We should not be funding faith schools > from general taxation- it is totally illogical I don't think the pool of contenders for the AodC role is so great as to affect the majority of this country.

Because most of my driving is in town, I drive an automatic. 20 mph is around the point where the auto gearbox changes up. It makes it difficult to keep at a constant speed. My automatic car provides, as I voice all do, for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear option as well as "Drive". Using 1st and 2nd gears when in a 20mph zone usually works well and is no more difficult than driving a manual car.