Jump to content

Recommended Posts

bawdy-nan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> do you mean a dietician?


Yes, the two are often confused!


From wikiP:

"In many countries only people who have specified educational credentials can call themselves "dietitians" ? the title is legally protected. The term "nutritionist" is also widely used; however, the term nutritionist is not regulated as dietitian is and is not an accurate term to give to a dietitian. People may call themselves nutritionists without the educational and professional requirements of registered dietitians. A nutritionist is not a dietitian, as a dietitian is registered to a national board and accredited and a nutritionist is neither."

She referred me for some blood tests to ascertain various allergies - I checked up on the tests and all sounded pretty decent to me, they're a standard recognised by the NHS (though I could never persuade my GP to refer me for them). She also really helped me with sorting out my diet which used to be shocking. Maybe it's all common sense - but sometimes you can't see the wood for the trees. As I said, I found her very good. Not making any more claims than that - each to their own.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Good advice Kipper!  The 1.0 early Ecoboost and 1.2 Puretech engines have wet cam belts that fail and failure with a cam belt invariably result in catastrophic  damage to valves and pistons. Later ones were changed to chains. Avoid at all costs!
    • Sorry. Link wasn't working on my phone, but it is now, and I couldn't delete the post.
    • I think there's a fair number of "participating" sub offices that do passports or, at least, play the "check and send" game (£16 for glancing at your form), so some degree of cherry-picking seems to be permitted. Though it does look as if Post Offices "Indentity Services" are where it things the future lies, and "Right to Rent" (though it's more an eligibility check) looks a bit of an earner, along with DBS checks and the Age Verification services that, if the government gets its way, we'll all need to subscribe to before we're allowed on mumsnet. Those services, incidentally, seem mostly outsourced to an outfit called "Yoti", a privately-owned, loss-making "identity platform" with debts of £150m, a tardy approach to filings, and a finger in a bunch of questionable pies ("Passive Facial Liveness Recognition" sounds gloriously sinister) so what the Post Office gets out of the arrangement isn't clear, but I'm sure they think it worthwhile. That said, they once thought the same of funeral plans which, for some peculiar reason, failed to set fire to the shuffling queues, even metaphorically. For most, it seems, Post Office work is mostly a dead loss, and even the parcel-juggling is more nuisance than blessing. As a nonchalant retailer of other people's services the organisation can only survive now on the back of subsidies, and we're not even sure what they are. The taxpayer-funded subsidies from government (a £136m hand-out to keep Horizon going, £1bn for its compensation scheme, around £50m for the network, and perhaps a loan or two) are clearish, but the cross-subsidies provided by other retail activities in branches are murkier. As are the "phantom shortfalls" created by the Horizon system, which secretly lined Post Office's coffers as postmasters balanced the books with contributions from their own pockets. Those never showed up in the accounts though - because Horizon *was* the accounting system - so we can't tell how much of a subsidy that was. We might get an idea of the scale, however, from Post Office's belated Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is handing £75k to every branch that's complained, though it's anyone's guess if that's fair or not. Still, that's all supposed to be behind us now, and Post Office's CEO-of-the-week recently promised an "extra" £250m a year for the branches (roughly enough to cover a minimum wage worker in each), which might make it worth the candle for some. Though he didn't expect that would happen before 2030 (we can only wonder when his pension will mature) and then it'd be "subject to government funding", so it might have to be a very short candle as it doesn't look like a promise that he can make. Still, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for a franchise, and it's possible that, this time, Post Office will be telling the truth. And, you never know, we might all be back in the Post Office soon, and eagerly buying stamps, if only for existence permits, rather than for our letters.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...