Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/27/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Agreed. Playing hide and seek, then ending up in the bathroom which is likely to be the only room in the house with a lockable door and then using the "our little secret" line. This suggests a level of sophistication normally associated with an experienced offender
  2. 3 points
    Wrong. I didn't. The first time I saw anything online after the verdict was what was posted up this morning. I don't buy any local paid-for newspapers so I wouldn't know what was said on Thursday. Just sayin'.
  3. 3 points
    This is not right when you have paid contributions,mandatory, all your working life, and your employer has also paid in for your health care. It is totally unacceptable and should be sorted asap. When the dentist shortage was at its peak a lot of people went private, this has saved the government mega bucks. I know a lot of people who have had hips and knees done privately because they could not put up with the pain, sold stuff to pay for the treatment. Also, if checks and investigational procedures are delayed serious illnesses can develop and the subsequent treatments will cost much more apart from the suffering to the patient. If ordinary members of the public can see this why can't the decision makers. A persons health is the most important thing in the world be it physical or mental it should be prioritised when decisions about funding are decided. Instead of pissing around with vanity projects this is one sure thing that needs sorted.
  4. 3 points
    Being lectured by pgw on the scientific method, what an irony!
  5. 3 points
    It was posted online this morning you argumentative prick. Do you have anything of value to post on here except starting pointless arguments with posters you don’t like? Sad old twat.
  6. 2 points
    I have posted in other threads that I believe that there should be open debate regarding our Health Service and that, given the seriousness of the issue and that we will all at sometime or another depend on that service, then such debate should, where possible, be based on fact not myths or falsehoods. I have read many opinions here and elsewhere relating to Hospital Consultant working contracts and in particular their relationship with Private Practice work. I am going to try to provide a simple explanation of the basic principles of the contract, keep my own opinions to myself, and hope that at least some others will find the information helpful. There will be those who will wish to have a go at me for doing so, but my life has already been saved by the NHS (The Public side of the service) and I want nothing more than informed debate on how to provide the best service to us all. It's complicated but I will try to keep it brief (ish). I will use the term 'NHS' as the contract over here is based on the NHS contract albeit with variations. In 1997 the Tony Blair / Gordon Brown government was elected. In 2001 negotiations commenced between 'New Labour' and the BMA representing doctors with the Governments aim being to reduce costs and increase the productivity of doctors (Consultants in particular). John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister) famously stated that 'We are no longer going to foot the bill for hospital consultants to play rounds of golf - if clocking in and out is good enough for my union members - it's good enough for Hospital Consultants as well' (words to that effect). Prescott had decided to reduce the consultant wage bill by paying doctors for what they did (hours worked) rather than their position (salary). Brown, as Chancellor, was happy to accept the cash saving, Blair liked the political overtones. In the first ballot, the Consultants rejected the new deal (about 60/40 iirc?) - The BMA said that the Government had misunderstood how doctors actually worked. Government tweaked the deal slightly, and put it back to a new vote with two (pretty serious) new conditions attached; 1. The 'New' contract would be mandatory for all hospitals, no variation permitted and therefore no 'bartering' between hospitals to get the best Consultants, and 2. Any Consultant who refused to sign the new deal would stay on the old contract (as they could by right) - but no Consultant on the 'old' contact would ever receive a further annual pay-rise. The old contract would therefore be left to 'wither on the vine'. And so, in 2003, with a small majority (52/48?) the '2003 New NHS Consultant Contract' was born. Doctors would now have to account for their working hours, and hence NHS spending on senior doctors would reduce. Except it didn't! Senior doctors started 'clocking in' as instructed, they billed the NHS for hours actually worked (sessions) and the wage bills rocketed. Hospital budgets started to suffer, Blair, Brown and Prescott went V. quiet about it all. BMA shrugged shoulders and said 'Told you so'. Turns out the doctors had been telling the truth all along, 55-60 hours being typically worked but only 40-45 being previously charged for (big generalisation and lots of variation I accept, but overall situation broadly along those lines). How does the contract work? In short, a 'Job plan' is agreed between each individual consultant and (usually) his/her Clinical Lead / Clinical Director - it then gets passed up to the Medical Director & CEO for approval. Annual reviews take place, changes by mutual agreement only, dispute system in place. Looks very similar to a School Timetable (who/where/what etc.) There are national example job plans available for every specialisation with input from NHS, Government, Royal Colleges, BMA etc. Not much dispute about job plans these days - they've being going since 2001. A 'Standard' job plan consists of 10 sessions of 4 hours each = 40 hours during the hours 0700-1900. Extra 'sessions' by mutual agreement to recognise extra work such as admin for 'Clinical leads' Clinical Directors etc. Stay with this now, this is the bit that matters to the NHS (and particularly to small jurisdictions such as the Island). 1. If you have a very specialist Consultant, for whom say there is not enough NHS work at that location to justify a full 10 session (40 hour) contract - the hospital can offset its costs by offering (say) only a 20 hour 5 session contract and mutually agreeing that the individual may then work in private practice outside of those 20 hours. That is mutually beneficial! It allows the hospital to acquire the services of a specialist that they could not otherwise afford or justify. 2. On the other hand, if the Hospital has more than enough work in a specialisation than it has staff - Then the individual Consultant MUST (as part of the 2003 contract) offer at least one further session (11 sessions / 44 hour week) to the NHS before they can then engage in any Private Practice. The Hospital is not contractually bound to offer this 11th session - but the individual Consultant is contractually bound to accept if requested by the hospital. The NHS / Hospital is contractually entitled to the first 44 hours of any full time Consultants services if they choose to take it. 3. If a Consultant is on contract to the NHS - only after 10 sessions (or 11 sessions if requested by Hospital) of NHS work may he/she then undertake private practice (PPS). The contract states; 'Subject to provision of schedule 9 of the T&C's, you may not carry out PPS during your Programmed Activities. In other words, it is perfectly possible for a Consultant to be undertaking PPS (of which the Hospital will be taking their cut!) during 'The Working week' IF that individual has already completed either 10 or 11 sessions of NHS work. It is not the 'Normal working hours' that matters - it is that individual doctors' completion of either 40 or 44 hours of NHS programmed activities before commencing any PPS that matters. Enough for now.
  7. 2 points
    You’ve made it at last Teapot, your own thread. Yes.
  8. 2 points
    Special overtime ? armed, with gun thingy ......✓ after midnight................✓ weekend .......................✓ holiday weekend..........✓ one for the log book....✓ ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
  9. 2 points
    That is probably the most oft used phrase on Facebook these days. I thought I was reading Vader's page for a second.
  10. 2 points
    I think all one can do is register for home stay and allow someone to stay WITH you, just not letting the house out like several do
  11. 2 points
    That depends, but currently, direct flight to malata is the best deal we can find, ( all inclusive deals, the best deal we can find ), https://www.jetcost.co.uk/flight-isle+of+man-malta.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyrK1z9vw4QIV7rvtCh0ZqAKIEAAYASAAEgJMEfD_BwE So we have booked with that, we are really looking forward to it, the home stay is the only way we can afford a holliday, as we are both unemployed and on unemployment benefit.
  12. 2 points
    Legally you can’t for two reasons 1. You can’t sub-let a council house and 2. You can’t register a council house under the homestay scheme. So you can’t legally do it either way. So charge enough to cover your eviction costs or a fine.
  13. 2 points
    Still hanging out of Dillis arse are you. Another comment aimed at me which again has no bearing on the thread, just another pathetic childish remark. 8000 posts and yet to be relevant once.
  14. 2 points
  15. 2 points
    Our hospital seems to be wanting to drive away all consultants doing private work at the moment. Again flawed logic when it comes to ‘cost cutting’
  16. 2 points
    I dunno about that dilli, the details which you read in the paper on Thursday I didn't read until the article was posted online today. Always happens, takes a few days before the full newspaper article makes it online, presumably in the hope people buy the paper. The extra details given in that article makes it even more strange that this guy has got off so lightly.
  17. 2 points
    Woody, what you have just written is total bullshit.
  18. 2 points
    That was published and posted days ago. Keep up, eh.
  19. 2 points
    What a truly marvellous tribute to the United Kingdom that graph is! From Sir Basil Brooke's interest in a Patent for making steel in 1615 (1615!), through to Abraham Derby, Ironbridge, Coalbrookdale, Birmingham tin bashers, Sheffield Steel - The United Kingdom literally forged the Industrial Revolution that changed the world. British steam trains hauling goods throughout India, Australia, Africa, and the rest of the Commonwealth. British ships plying the world trade routes and even to be found on the inland lakes of Africa and South America. The Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Seaway, Thousand Islands routes all opened up by British Steel (John Deere factory still use that route to this day). Steel for skyscrapers and Multi-storey hospitals. Bridges and roads and railways throughout the world. Tractors to produce the food that feeds billions. Trucks to move that food. Steam engines and turbines to provide water, lighting and power. The worlds biggest navy and an empire to boot. James Watt, Brunel, Stephenson's rocket. Perkins, Rolls Royce, JCB........ To do all that (and much, much, more) for over 400 years of World development and yet only rate No5 in the cumulative total. What a truly wonderful achievement!
  20. 1 point
    The internet is a wonderful resource - apparently you can use it to look up things -who knew? Anyway a few minutes Googling discloses that in 2016 a press release was issued saying Council tenants can indeed let out their properties for Homestay - but they must get written permission from the Council (this applies to any tenant by the way - not just in social housing). Furthermore it says So it's more about letting out the spare room that giving over the whole house to a gang of bikers. Presumably if you did do that illegally, the Council would (a) be more likely to notice and (b) feel entitled to get the police to remove them from somewhere they had no legal right and (c) feel able to terminate your tenancy for breaking the terms. The same press release says that you are entitled to have people staying with you (the implication is for free) up to about four weeks, so you could have friends staying for TT and any payment would be less easy to detect if you didn't register for Homestay. In any case it's almost too late to register for formal Homestay as the deadline is the end of the month (next Tuesday). Note that "During the TT period ‘Homestay Hosts’ can earn up to £1,800 tax free income.", but I'm not sure how that would affect benefits.
  21. 1 point
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    eco elite nutters in action...... big dirty red bus with one person onboard...... yet she doesn't want you to drive your car...... stopping all buses will be another massive saving in co2.......
  24. 1 point
    OK. Corbyn is willing to meet some despicable people. But even he has his limits!
  25. 1 point
    I know that but legally you have to be registered for homestay and you can’t register so as I said legally you can’t let your council house out for TT. I suppose it makes sense as your rent is subsidised so why should you be able to profit by re-selling it? Of course you can run the risk if you want but if you get caught they could evict you. Are you flying to Tenerife or driving there in your luxury motorhome?
  26. 1 point
    The problem is that NI contributions are a drop in the ocean compared to the costs of our healthcare, the rest comes from tax revenues of all sorts. If we were made to pay more towards NI, we would expect higher pensions and better healthcare and wages would have to rise, making the place less desirable to potential employers. It's a sick world we live in!
  27. 1 point
    I’ve been dealing with a family friend at the moment who has had to go private to get treatment. No health insurance so he’s paying cash to get sorted. Then ended up in a massive bunfight as NHS staff have refused to provide certain things to the private consultant. Seems they prefer to play politics rather than try to help a sick person out who just wants to secure treatment in the fastest possible way to reduce the likelihood of them dying. Those paper pushers up at the hospital should hold their heads in shame. They aren’t there to provide a service just play political games with peoples’ lives under the pretense of saving money for the taxpayer. They really seem to hate some of the consultants doing private work and like to put up blockers even if that interferes with people’s treatment. Probably typical Manx envy for people earning more than they are.
  28. 1 point
    Yes you obviously can, i know quite a few who do, but my question is, "what would i charge per night,". or per week" , or for the 2 weeks, would £2,000, seem unreasonable, for the two weeks ?
  29. 1 point
    I agree entirely despite the fact that I have paid for treatment I disagree with and would not buy "health insurance", but when one has been advised to expect a considerable wait for a medical procedure and one has little faith in Gov to improve matters it's not surprising that folk put monies aside to pay for private treatment as they do for their 'old age'. Given that if one paid for private medical treatment it is interesting to note that the Gov will not consider giving one a tax incentive as they do to the 'shyster god squad brigade', funny old world.
  30. 1 point
    That makes for very unpleasant reading and highlights there needs to be some sort of change within the law. Just because no sexual contact was made there has been no punishment, the intent was most definitely there. If any male or female is having any sort of ill thoughts about a child or is as close to committing a sexual act/offence as this 'man' was/is, then counselling should be sought/forced as a bare minimum, I also think these individuals should have to register any device capable of copying/distributing images from the internet and these devices /their internet history should be searched frequently, meetings should also be recorded and used as a support tool for others who are having similar dark thoughts, a suspended sentence means nothing, why should a child have to be hurt/abused before anything is done? I also think the child needs some form of counselling, she needs praise/support for speaking out and then it needs to be made clear that this individual overstepped a line which should never be crossed by any 'adult' or any child old enough to know better, its all well and good the parents doing this but parents are known for their nagging/control and sometimes it takes a professional for that child to listen/engage. The only thing that makes for some positive reading is this 'man' hasn't accused the child of lying which suggests some form of conscience, I do hope this example is both the beginning and end of things and not just the surface that has been scratched.
  31. 1 point
    The reference I found is in Section 18A of the Sexual Offences Act 1992 (though it's clearly a later amendment): which seem more aimed at online grooming. So this may be a lack in Manx Law. As it happens this case doesn't really fit the more 'traditional' type of grooming either - there's no suggestion that he'd been encouraging the girl to come round, giving sweets or whatever. The fact that she reported the incident straight away tends to support that. It's still a shocking incident though, even as a one-off, and it's worth remembering that he was given a prison sentence - just that it was suspended. I suspect it was right on the border and only the lack of other factors plus his age, lack of past record and early admission[1] kept him from jail. They clearly decided to bring in a judge from across just for the sentencing, which is unusual, so there would be no hint of personal acquaintance[2] affecting what was given. So they would have wanted to make sure that the sentence was set so it couldn't be appealed in either direction. [1] i think this tends to be given quite a lot of weight in such cases because it spares the victim from having to give evidence for the trial or thinking that they will have to (if the accused changes their plea at the last moment). [2] Although, as has already been said, the paper is wrong and he doesn't seem to be an advocate (at least he's not on the Law Society list) and his website doesn't mention being qualified in other jurisdictions, say as a barrister or solicitor, there's no getting away from the fact he would have been moving in the same circles as the Island's judiciary.
  32. 1 point
    Why feel sorry for the CM? He's no better than the rest of them
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    Well I don’t buy the paper so I’m glad the link was posted otherwise I wouldn’t have got to read it. It certainly makes you wonder whether he’s done the old fictitious game of hide and seek routine before.
  35. 1 point
    And it was posted online this morning so I added to this thread as other than scanning the newspaper there was no other way to post it up here for people to comment on you pointless, boring, argumentative, old toss bag.
  36. 1 point
    It was in Thursdays Manx Indy. The exact article. I quoted from it. Why are you so angry, it’s only lunchtime yet
  37. 1 point
    Evolution of measurements of Hubble constant. What were those guys in 1932 smoking? Also... https://astronomynow.com/2019/04/27/hubble-constant-mismatch-no-fluke-new-physics-may-be-needed/ Hubble measurements suggest a faster expansion rate in the modern universe than expected, based on how the universe appeared more than 13 billion years ago. These measurements of the early universe come from the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite. This discrepancy has been identified in scientific papers over the last several years, but it has been unclear whether differences in measurement techniques are to blame, or whether the difference could result from unlucky measurements. The latest Hubble data lower the possibility that the discrepancy is only a fluke to 1 in 100,000. This is a significant gain from an earlier estimate, less than a year ago, of a chance of 1 in 3,000. These most precise Hubble measurements to date bolster the idea that new physics may be needed to explain the mismatch.
  38. 1 point
    Something to do with expensive shoes?
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
    plenty of studies into it..... try bristol uni.... http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html its purely abut tax so the eco elite nutters never have to work...... and who's gonna pay for it while they jet around the world.........
  41. 1 point
    I am getting sick to death of hearing about Rees-Mogg's rotund fag Paul Francois. He always mentions the 17.5 million who voted for brexit. Not the percentages of course because it was so close and NEVER the 33 odd million who didn't vote brexit.. Strange but true he's a so-called politician who doesn't realise that a democracy should never be a tyranny by the majority. He's so fond of saying "That's not the brexit the British People voted for." Well for all you Brexiteers here is a reminder of the brexit the "British People" voted for: Leave the European Union That's it.....
  42. 1 point
    The first 75 years of his existence have been for nothing. Stupid, stupid man.
  43. 1 point
    The Viking Trail out along Marine Drive to Port Grenaugh.
  44. 1 point
    Multiplied by 2 is how the Tourist Board have come up with their figures for years!!!
  45. 1 point
    It is not "opportunistic" to ask a girl of 7 "which part of me do you want to see next?", then suggest going to the bathroom together and dropping your trousers and asking the 7 year old to pull down your underpants. Oh and "don't tell your mum, it is our secret".
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    But when it’s completely legal to drink and drive......
  48. 1 point
    No jail, no fine, sentence isn't that bad at all really. I think longer driving bans are preferable to pointless jail terms for this kind of thing.
  49. 1 point
    A number of root vegetables are also proposing to stand and already have my vote !
  50. 0 points
×
×
  • Create New...