I was reading the BBC’s report on the progress of the NHS IT programme this morning and to be honest all seems well. We are informed that this I.T. programme has already delivered £208 million in savings and by 2014 it is on course to deliver £1.4bn savings. This is truly pathetic stuff – the BBC is merely regurgitating NHS propaganda. The FACTS of the matter is that this NHS I.T. fiasco has spiralled in cost from an initial estimated £2.3 billion to £6 billion then to £9 billion and most recently it has been moved up to £12.4 billion. Even this figure is no longer secure and the date of implementation also keeps moving out. The NHS is one of the articles of faith held by the BBC and so any hint that things are calamitously wrong is neatly shielded from public consumption by the State broadcaster. It makes you sick, but not so sick that you would trust the NHS. Or the BBC.
A SMALL I.T. PROBLEM.
Bookmark the permalink.
Hi Arthur,
Many thanks for the info.
Incompetent project managers seems to be a likely scenario. Wished David would shed more light on this, since he has been posting on this.
There are still many questions unanswered. The back-up to the figures given by David. If the “goal-post” was shifted by the NHS and the private sector had to increase its invoice, then David shouls post the evidence, rather than presenting some figures without back-up.
Anyway, many thanks for stepping in. Much appreciated.
Pot-Kettle-Black:
Vance has a nationalistic fervour about all things Irish, the BBC has a nationalistic fervour about all things BBC.
Maybe Vance should hold that thought next time he feels someone is attacking Ireland before launching into the typical witch-hunting cry of ‘racist’ so beloved by the leftist media he despises.
My point – clearly sailing over such a low orbiting mind as your own Pot-Kettle-Black – is that those that scream about the blatant bias in others reasoning should perhaps look at the blatant bias of their own.
If someone had posted a link claiming all Brummies are thick, I wouldn’t have instantly accused the poster of being a racist because he linked to it. Censorship by moral blackmail. Something the Beeb and the lefty media dish out by the bucketload.
I would have thought Vance would have understood that and passed it off as nothing more than a flat joke or just ignored it, rather than trying to beat his opponent down with the threat of the ‘racist’ brand-iron.
I agree that the BBC are nothing more than a pack of soft-brained socialists and I utterly despise the way they constantly use the term ‘racist’ to defeat anyone that opposes them. So I find it very disheartening to see the opposition doing the same thing.
“Nurses are not angels, that’s just PR puff, they are people with an income to protect and as such are as fallable as the rest of us”
I never said any different (although I would say they are not paid enough for what they do – and I speak as a free-marketeer who wants to attract more good staff, not as a leveller).
But it was you who used the phrase ‘swanning around’.
Bored has a point. Mr. Vance’s remarks were so PC – which is not a sentiment on this site as far as I can tell. I’m so fed up with PC correctness, and the threat to ban was indeed censorship by moral black mail.
If there is one thing more obnoxious that a PC corrector, it’s a censor!!!
“Degree qualifications in this field are unnecessary … get on with the job of nursing”
Well, that’s just planet Zog stuff. The amount of knowledge of blood chemistry alone that’s involved in today’s nursing, requires a lot of study. You seem to live in the days when all that nurses did was change bedpans, i.e. ca. 1950. Had there been at least one junior doctor per 4 beds available full-time, you might have been right. But there isn’t, nor is there ever likely to be. The alternative is to have enough nurses who are qualified to monitor lab results in the first instance (some patients suffering from acute conditions need those 5 times a day) and make initial judgements such as whether to alert a doctor urgently.
If there is one thing more obnoxious that a PC corrector, it’s a censor!!!
Diana | Homepage | 18.05.08 – 10:00 am
Then you would not have been too happy with this site 6 months ago. The administrators went through a phase of snipping out anything not strictly related to BBC bias and throwing it in the dustbin. 90% of this thread would have ended up in the bin.
‘The administrators went through a phase of snipping out anything not strictly related to BBC bias ‘
Brian,
I suppose one has to have balance. I read through the site yesterday, and a lot of the stuff was totally unrelated to bbc bias in my view. There has got to be some semblance of being directly related to what the site is about. Going off in one extreme or the other simply takes away from the message the site is trying to get out. If bbc bias for example is overshadowed by other things then perhaps they were trying to bring it back to their central message. I’ve no problem with that, or with moderation, it’s threats due to PC ness I have a problem with.
Telling someone their time is over due to the political correctness of a comment if it is related to the site is a censor gone mad. Moderation in all things surely?
p.s. been looking through the comments too, very interesting. I think I’m getting the hang of how things work around here. Certainly the central message of bbc bias is one that is too often ignored sadly, although the same type of bias is happening elsewhere. However, a lot of the threads do tend to strain the bias message, particularly from this poster, while the others are more directly related to the central message of bbc bias imv.
Is this a new guy on the block of late? I’m getting that impression. Maybe that is the reason for his inability to always hit the central message of bbc with his posts?
Nearly Oxfordian | 18.05.08 – 10:04 am | & Nearly Oxfordian | 18.05.08 – 9:56 am |
The amount of knowledge of blood chemistry alone that’s involved in today’s nursing, requires a lot of study
Which is what lab techs are for not nurses, surely?
Perhaps this is a question of terminology. Someone in hospitals has to ‘nurse’ the patients. By nurse I mean feed and water them, keep them clean, change their bandages. To care for them.
Currently this is not been done to a sufficient standard. Nearly 140,000 patients suffered malnutrition in hospital in 2007. Simply because they were not fed. I doubt this figure can be matched by Third World countries never mind First!
I really don’t care who does it or what they are called, so long as someone does it. It used to be nurses – who is it now?
Tsk. Pressed the wrong button.
Last sentence should read :
I really don’t care who does it or what they are called, so long as someone does it. It used to be nurses – who is it now the porters?
Diana,
You have overdone it now.
Your constant moans about the site are getting very tired.
The site isn’t yours and if the rules don’t suit you can always leave and set up your own.
But if you don’t like it so much, then don’t contribute, then don’t read it.
Its not compulsory.
Unlike the BBC licence fee.
Diana: “Is this a new guy on the block of late? I’m getting that impression…”
Why’s that? Funny also that your blogger page was created just this month, and you so quickly stumbled across this site. I’m getting the impression you’re a sock puppet.
“The amount of knowledge of blood chemistry alone that’s involved in today’s nursing, requires a lot of study”
“Which is what lab techs are for not nurses, surely?”
Last time I looked, lab technicians were not checking patients’ charts at their bedsides.
Hugh,
I think Diana is very much a sock puppet. I’m afraid I have my critics and they follow me. Still, as Pot-Kettle-Black puts it, when I see Diana’s posts I’ll just go straight past them. Life’s too short too waste it on trolls.
Nearly Oxfordian | 18.05.08 – 7:37 pm |
Last time I looked, lab technicians were not checking patients’ charts at their bedsides.
And neither it seems are the nurses. So full circle. Again. Want to go around one more time?
If anyone think todays angels spend all or even most of their time actually ‘caring’ for patients then read this
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2008/04/productive-ward-more-codswallop-from.html
I agree again Cattle.
What is the point of high-tech wizardry, higher qualifications and other shit if nurses lack the capacity to humbly master a few ABCs of basic health care: hygiene, proper feeding etc..
What exactly is wrong with you people?
“Nearly Oxfordian | 18.05.08 – 7:37 pm |
Last time I looked, lab technicians were not checking patients’ charts at their bedsides.
And neither it seems are the nurses.”
My experience is the reverse of that.