david_carnell

I'm with my man H on the whole chocolate dessert. Pass. But then cheese and port/brandy/booze would put me to sleep so that's no good either. Perhaps exchange dessert for breakfast?

Steak and salad. Wine. Bed. You can be all done in under an hour! ;-)

If we're doing that you might as well chuck in all of England except London and the SE. Useless wasters.

Whilst I can see the arguments for reform, as indeed can many of the Royal Colleges who are opposing the Bill, I am also left wondering whether after 13 years of Labour reforms and now more promised by the coalition, the NHS is in a constant state of flux. We bemoan that increased bureaucracy stops clinical staff treating patients but instead ties them to a desk filling out forms and yet with every new reform or reorganisation we are making that situation worse. A moratorium on reform may be more beneficial in the short term. Lansley apparently spent six years in opposition coming up with these proposals and yet he may have done better jotting them down on the back of an envelope.

I understand that you, as a manager/small business owner, have had run-ins with unions that have influenced your opinion. And, just as in all stratas of business or walks of life, some trade unionists will be jobsworth layabouts who do nothing constructive and actually damage worker-management relations. But they are a minority. Your constant belittling of the union movement is beginning to get as tiresome as it is misguided. For every instance of a dodgy tribunal, I can point to fundamental employment reforms that have benefitted workers. You seem to think that without targets nurses would seek to do as little work as possible, completely failing to notice the difference between choosing a career in nursing and one working in sales. It's absurd.

But then I would imagine your knowledge of NHS form filling is about the same as my knowledge of Singapore's bar scene.

Mamora Man - perhaps you could offer insight into the pro-business FT writing a leader today that also proposes that the govt should drop this "mess" of a bill?

*feels crushed and devalued* I hadn't researched her to such depths to discover that abomination.

Today's Evening Standard have picked up our baton. The hitherto unbeknownst-to-me-but-now-love-of-my-imaginary-life Rosamund Urwin criticises both prospective mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone for: "Watch out! There's less police about" in a campaign poster - all those with O-Level English will know that "police" is a count noun and should therefore should be prefixed with "fewer" (I recently read that a supermarket has changed it's aisle posters but can't remember which one) - and she also knocks Prime Minister David Cameron for insisting: "...on saying 'try and' whenever he speaks. An Eton education apparently isn't enough to impart the information that this sense of 'try' is followed by an infinitive." She also admits to being a "young fogey" and reading Simon Heffer's Strictly English on holiday. I think I might be in love.

Ah the split infinitive. Now we are talking. The classic example for those who have been living in the Gamma Quadrant is the Star Trek intro: "To boldly go...." where the strict grammarians amongst you will now be screaming at your screens. It should of course be: "To go boldly...." but that sounds clunky and devoid of romance and rhetorical grandeur. So we let it slide. Language evolves over years, decades, centuries and millenia. To try and preserve it in aspic is not only futile but unhelpful. But I've got to say that whenever I hear "centred around" I do want to throttle the culprit. So don't listen to me.

There are publications where non-paid contributor journalism works very well and produces high quality copy. Fire and Knives for example.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think comparing North Korea to the Labour > government of 1997-2010 might be a bit of stretch > even for reductio ad absurdum don't you? > > It's that sort of stuff that'll get you branded as > "less intelligent" > > Where was this comparison made? Well, indiepanda spoke about the Labour government's financial acumen (or lack of), then spoke about "left wing" governments in general and then said "and don't get me started on communists". Her train of thought seems to suggest a lineage between New Labour and Communists. I, rightly, pointed out that this was a bit of a leap and she was being silly. Also, I was being flippant. You know, as indicated by the winky thing.

Is most of that not due to the huge amounts of govt money invested to stop the banking collapse rather than some sort of splurge on new outfits for firemen?

I think comparing North Korea to the Labour government of 1997-2010 might be a bit of stretch even for reductio ad absurdum don't you? It's that sort of stuff that'll get you branded as "less intelligent" ;-)

Well quite. A big hit is something the crowd love to see and gets your team mates fired up. A back row forward hits a small(ish) back at full tilt and 9 times out of 10 the smaller fella is going to be lifted off the ground. Now you just can't govern for that in a full contact sport played by near 20 stone pro athletes. We all know that spearing is dangerous and that a tip tackle isn't great but a red card for both seems unequal. When you think a few years back that Umanga got away with a tour ending spear on O'Driscoll during a NZ v Lions game and now we have players being cited for what Ferris did we've gone from one extreme to another.

Rob Kitson in today's Guardian makes an interesting point: "....even schoolboy physics teaches you that what goes up must come down. If you are 6ft 6in tall and your feet and ankles are whipped from under you, the chances are that your torso will rapidly obey the law of gravity. If you stick an arm down to break your fall, the tipping process will be enhanced still further regardless of what the tackler is up to. Equally, if you weigh 12 stone and you are tackled by someone considerable stronger and heavier, you will be upended more easily. Centres of gravity can vary massively from individual to individual. "All of which makes adjudicating on tip-tackles a minefield. On the one hand you have the IRB insisting anything around the horizontal is a heinous crime. On the other you have forwards giving everything for their countries in the final minutes of epic contests. If the referee, or his assistant, overreacts in the heat of the moment it can ruin games ? and tarnish careers ? in an instant." Minefield.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, the majority of 'that crowd' directly > benefit from a monpoly market - they may simply be > trying to jam closed the door on any sort of > competition that may reveal their weaknesses, > expose inefficiencies, or even try and prevent > some GPs from collecting over a hundred thousand > pounds a year in salaries whilst only taking > appointments weeks in advance. > > It is not reasonable to assume that 'that crowd' > are only motivated by delivering the best health > service, when their pay, perks, conditions, > accountability and workrate are closely linked to > the outcome. But the flip side of that coin is that two of the organisations in favour of the bill are, or represent, the private sector health care providers or suppliers who would be most likely to gain financially from the bill passing. So their support isn't an indication of anything other than their own vested interests either. It is easy to portray the BMA, the RCN and the RCM opposition to the health bill as a product of grievances on pay and pensions, as they are trade unions as well as professional bodies. But although pensions are a big issue for them, that isn't the reason for opposition to the Bill. Last year the BMA voted to work constructively with the government, as did the Royal Colleges. Now they have moved to outright opposition. Now the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of GPs have voted to oppose, after 98% of RCGP members surveyed said they wanted the Health and Social Care Bill to be withdrawn. The Faculty of Public Health is surveying it's members after an Emergency General Meeting voted against the reforms, and the Royal College of Physicians are holding an emergency meeting too. The Royal College of Surgeons have stated they have concerns, but will continue to work to improve the Bill. These are not trade union bodies, but represent their members' views regarding health care delivery. And for all the cries of "Reform, Reform! We need Reform!" I've yet to note dissent from my earlier post that showed that the NHS is one of the most efficient health care services in the world.

*Bob* - that was last week. This week the foodstuffs have to be variable. Food on my dog

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am goign to have to make this now! David are > the anchovies that are marinated ok to stuff in?? Marinaded in oil? Absolutely. If it's something else, then it would be dependent on what. Just use the cheap jarred or tinned ones rather than the expensive fresh white ones from a deli or fishmongers. They'll dissolve into nothing but gorgeous tastiness. Have you ever tried the same thing with a leg of mutton? It's wonderful if cooked longer and slower (i.e lower heat). More flavour and more moist. If you can't find it locally the East London Steak Co sell mutton by mail order that arrives in a chill box and free delivery to ED.

I'm not THAT dim. You even reference Huhne so I know that's who you're talking about. Or rather using his resignation to launch yet another cliched attack on "progressives". Who are they by the way? Is there a club? And what exactly is so wrong with them? But it doesn't matter does it? It's just a paint-by-numbers, lazy terminology you like to bandy about to attack anyone who fits the hackneyed, one-dimensional stereotype that you fixate and froth over. Are you really interested in debating climate change? Or how to improve the competitiveness of British manufacturing? Or merely metaphorically gobbing in the general direction of "progressives"? I suspect I know the answer. But I'm not that observant. The bitterest irony is that for as long as you've been on here you constantly bemoan being stereotyped as some raving right-winger and that any who dares break the hegemonic thought on immigration, Europe, law and order etc is branded a Daily Mail reader and the battle is a hopeless one. Yet instead of practising what you preach you're just as bad.

Quids in attack on smug Guardianistas in entirely unrelated news story shocker.

In addition to WOD's recommendation, stuff some anchovy fillets in with the garlic and rosemary. Much better than it sounds adding a lovely, savoury, umami (the sixth taste) to the meat. Also, rack of lamb, quickly roasted, served with puy lentils cooked in veg stock and herbs, served with a salsa verde. Delicious.

Agreed.

The simple answer would be that he is unable to fulfil his duties as captain with this cloud over him rather than a suspicion that he is guilty and being treated as such. Huhne is the same. You cannot be a Sec of State whilst fighting criminal charges.

Likewise John Terry has been stripped of the England captaincy.