Sherwick

The Beano was rubbish and for girls compared to Valiant!

bigbadwolf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a financial expert who deals with risk and > uncertainty. Zzzzzzzz Zzzzzzzzz

Are we sure it's really 2009 and not 1979??? What on earth is going on?!?!?

Where in N London are you from Sally? I used to live in various parts of N & NW London for nigh on 30 years before i came "darn sarf" - it's much better here imho (and Dulwich is very nice indeed).

Building 7 did not fall down all by itself.

Funniest thing I've read for a while from BBC HYS 15/05/2009: "Last year, my MP's second home claim was ?5,000 more than my total salary and now I find out that he's trying to charge me for cleaning his swimming pool!" You've gotta laugh! :))

David Mc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes there was! I picked it up myself and studied > the label! Studied it you say...?

macroban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I want one of these for East Dulwich shopping. > > Free for pensioners. I told you before that Kew was better than ED!

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the question of cars has only become an > issue in ED because we do not have a public car > park. I think it is a great shame that we cannot > invest in a patch of local land which not used so > that we have a place for visitors to the area to > park. > > Louisa. Can't we use Dulwich Village as the car park?

I used to fancy Lesley Judd in the 70s when she presented Blue Peter.. ::o

consent was gained from all patients but one I believe. I don't believe annaj has said that (she would follow due process over patient care), but s/he has, in my opinion, implied this. I believe this because s/he supports the panel's conclusions and punishment. As I said, most of us question others' professionalism all the time - are they personal attacks? Perhaps they are. The fact is that this is annaj's profession, and I think that the profession has made a serious error (much like bankers/politicians/accountants sometimes do). Since annaj supports this decision, I am questioning her professionalism, and as such, it is a personal attack. There's nothing much I can do about this except keep quiet and say nothing.

Santerme, I disagree with the panel's findings. In my opinion, all that the nurse needed was to THINK that going to Panorama would lead to the abuse stopping QUICKER not IMMEDIATELY. It certianly wouldn't have stopped IMMEDIATELY if she had followed due process so why does this immediate need only apply to not following due process? Double and illogical standards. As for this: "she must first have exhausted all other avenues of addressing the inadequacies on the ward". ALL other avenues? "ALL"? What rubbish! That could have taken a VERY long time! Finally this: "The registrant did not exhaust the process of making representations". THANK HEAVENS FOR THAT!

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, I have every right to question your > professionalism > > How do you work that out? What gives you the right > to question the professionalism of someone you've > never met? I don't get that at all. Keef, don't we question the professionalism of people we've never met all the time? Bankers, politicians, accountants auditors (Enron) - the list is endless. I have a right in this instance because my gran is in a care home. Annaj implies that s/he would rather follow due process rather than look out for the healthcare of my gran. (I've asked - albeit in a roundabout way - on many occasions whether going to the media is OK if it stops abuse quicker - the answer appears to be 'no').

I never implied that you were or are rubbish at your profession. However, I have every right to question your professionalism (and note, I am not questioning your standards of care and quite a few members of my immediate family are doctors - some pretty senior). The question is, would your standards on confidentiality compromise your care for your patients? To me it seems that they would. For example, it would seem that you would follow the correct route to lodge complaints EVEN IF this would mean that more abuse would be likely to occur. I say that the morally correct route to take would be the one that led to LESS abuse occuring. Preventing abuse of patients is more important than patient confidentiality in my opinion, and I am entitled to hold opinions (as you say), some of which may question your professionalism.

lilly123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > somerfields in lordship lane is going to be a > co-op soon geez

'orrible place - by the way, there's a West Dulwich Forum too...

Um, annaj, didn't you say earlier today (at 2:37 pm and earlier in the day) that you weren't in possession of all the facts? May I ask how long do you think it would have taken to pursue all the channels you suggest. Also, how many more people would have been abused duing that time? As was pointed out earlier, consent was obtained from all but one individual. Frankly, if it was my gran being abused, I wouldn't have cared if consent was obtained from ANY of them including my gran. I believe that exposing on Panorama brought a quicker end to this abuse than reporting to the NMC, the Health ombudsman or the police. Is it necessary to show individuals? I think 'yes' to highlight the abuse that was occuring. Once again, ensuring patient care trumps confidentiality each and every time for me, but maybe not for you. Whatever ensured the quickest end to the abuse was the best way to proceed, and I think this was via showing on Panorama.

bignumber, I already identified above that the reason for bringing up Nuremburg was NOT because there was a similar ethics incident there.

I can't wait til the new Sports Academy opens with the new Waitrose and M&S too! :)

Derek Pringle's the worst bowler ever to bowl for England IMHO.

Sean, I think that you should read your own posts before accusing others of bad manners! Look, it's quite simple really. It is wrong for care home staff to abuse patients. Is it also wrong to film the abuse without the consent of all said patients. Which is the greater wrong? Or, which of the following two is more utilitarian in bringing the greatest good for the greatest number of people IN THIS CASE? 1. Pursuing the proper channels and not breaching patient confidentiality by not filming or broadcasting the film after not gaining consent? 2. Bringing the abuse very quickly to the attention of a national audience via Panorama - abuse that had been reported and had already given rise to over 5000 complaints? In my view, the more utilitarian instance is number 2. This is because pursuing number 1 at best only benefits the patients in the film (who may additionally be harmed in any case by abuse if number 1 was followed - in fact they were harmed as the film showed). Number 2, on the other hand, brings a lot of benefit to those who were filmed, as well as benefitting other patients at the hospital who won't be abused, as wll as benefitting other future patients at the hospital who won't be abused, and potentially benefitting patients at other hospitals who won't be abused as staff are now scared that they could be filmed. It's wrong to breach patient confidentiality yes. But it's more wrong to follow the proper channels to report this abuse because of the length of time involved, thus the extra amount of abuse that would have taken place (in my humble opinion).

matthew123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sherwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > eater81 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > At their prices id actually rather go to > > > Somerfield! Where's the M and S gonna be by > > the > > > way? > > > > The existing Somerfield is moving to near The > > Plough (Barry Road) while the new M&S is going > to > > take the place of where Somerfield currently > is. > > Apparently... > > Utter bollox. > > It's actually another well known brand that is > branching out to Lordship Lane to take over at the > existing Somerfield site, namely 'Harrods Food > Hall' Not Waitrose then? :(

I'd just like to point out that ther are in fact two Dulwich Park gates on Dulwich Common (not that it really matters I suppose).

eater81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At their prices id actually rather go to > Somerfield! Where's the M and S gonna be by the > way? The existing Somerfield is moving to near The Plough (Barry Road) while the new M&S is going to take the place of where Somerfield currently is. Apparently...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I noticed they were smaller on Saturday on my > regular early morning drive past to my daughter's > bourgeios saturday morning activity......... Is she a Gloater? I.e. gloating at the Peckham residents?