Vested interest in the NHS exploiting the developing world

By | | , ,
Comments Off on Vested interest in the NHS exploiting the developing world

Bloody Money AcceptedIt’s good to see that the Junior Doctors have called off their strike for the time being, but it’s worth remembering that the shortage of doctors in this country is entirely artificially created and maintained by the doctors union the BMA. Why does the NHS depend upon poaching Doctors from other countries robbing them of skilled professionals that those countries need? The BMA. Why are there so few Junior doctors, such that they have to work unrealistically long hours endangering patients (except when they’re paid enough)? The BMA. Why can’t we just train more doctors? The BMA.

Being a Doctor in the UK requires you to join a closed shop where the numbers are limited, accreditation is by the BMA a trade union which negotiates pay, sets the regulations and controls the numbers of people allowed to do the work to ensure high wages and job security. This is of course exactly what a trade union should be doing, but as a country we shouldn’t be allowing our entire health service to be forced to dance to the tune of such blatant self interest. Why do we depend upon foreign doctors to ensure the health service can work? Because the BMA repeatedly votes to limit the number of medical students in the UK to ensure high wages and job security.
2008
“Delegates at the annual BMA conference voted by a narrow majority to restrict the number of places at medical schools to avoid “overproduction of doctors with limited career opportunities.” They also agreed on a complete ban on opening new medical schools.”
2016
“Recommendations to reduce the number of medical students could help alleviate the risk of unemployment among newly qualified doctors, the BMA has agreed.
A government-commissioned report advises a 2 per cent reduction in medical school intakes in England from next year, with the situation revisited in 2014 and reassessed every three years.”

So whilst we’re being told that the NHS is under staffed, under funded and utterly dependent upon us poaching doctors from other countries the BMA is working to reduce the number of people in the UK that can become doctors to ensure high wages and no competition. These are not the actions of people acting selflessly for the health and good of their community. This is blatant rent seeking and regulatory capture. In almost all other fields the destruction of the closed shop has lead to an improvement in standards and a reduction in costs – so no wonder the BMA are so dead set against it.

The myths spun by the BMA are so effective that when talking about the “privatisation of the NHS” the fact that every GP’s surgery is a private enterprise sub-contracted to the NHS is completely ignored. GP’s the part of the NHS that we interact with the most are privatised and always have been. If we want to nationalise the NHS perhaps we should start with the GPs and by abolishing the BMAs immoral strangle hold on our health services that robs other countries of vital medical staff?

For utter brass neck we are expected to believe that the NHS is dependent on foreign doctors working over here, and thus on remaining part of the EU (EU immigrants make up 10% of registered doctors) whilst at the same time we’re told to fear that training more doctors might mean they work abroad.

According to the General Medical council 36.1% of doctors in the UK trained abroad and yet the BMA are reducing the number of doctors that can train in the UK!! We’re dependent on poaching over 15,000 doctors from other countries, but are planing a “reduction of 124 students from this year’s target of 6,195.” So next time the BMA or a junior doctor tries to claim the the Government are trying to impose unrealistic conditions on them and that we’re short of doctors – remember that they’re the ones limiting the numbers to line their own pockets, and when they complain against the privatization of the NHS it’s the BMA’s own members who are quite happy to run private businesses that charge the NHS for their services.

0

When is a tutu like a burkini?

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on When is a tutu like a burkini?

Enforcing the Burka There has been quite a lot of talk about the French ban on the “Burkini” in recent weeks thankfully it has for now been ruled illegal. There have also been comparisons with rules in other countries which dictate how women should dress, arguing along the lines of “well if they insist on it, we can ban it fair’s fair”. Now whilst I suspect most people reading this will consider that nonsense, I will none the less point out that saying “they do bad stuff, so we can as well” is a really really dumb argument. Really do you want to mimic the behaviour of people whose behavior you find objectionable. Now some women in Europe may be being forced to wear burqa’s when they don’t want to, but as the ex-muslim observes, banning it won’t help those women, they’ll just lose what freedoms they currently have. Not only will it not help them and will further enforce their marginalization it decays our freedoms.

“The burkini ban is ridiculous and bad. This I agree on, unequivocally. My reasoning for this boils down to it defeats its own purpose by only isolating a marginalized group further, and policing the clothing of others is bad On Principle because it violates bodily autonomy.”

If we declare burkini’s unacceptable what else should also be declared unacceptable? Also if the French argument for banning the burqa is secularism, why no ban on turbans, nuns, priests collars, Hasidc hats etc etc. In certain places and circumstances it’s reasonable to insist that people have their faces uncovered, say for instance in a bank but that’s not specific to a particular style of face covering and doesn’t apply to the wider world. If we decide that the dress of a particular culture should be restricted what makes that mode of garb so uniquely different from any other that such rules couldn’t be extended to almost anything. It’s the same slippery slope as presented to us by calls to treat “hate” crime more severely depending on the sub culture in question. Any law or legislation that singles out one group over another either for preferential or disadvantageous treatment is not a route we should ever think about going down. The argument that seems so reasonable today to deal with one group is all to readily reused tomorrow to oppress us all. So to answer the question posed in the title of this ramble – because when we start saying we can dictate what one group of people can wear we give legitimacy to the sort of arsehole who thinks it reasonable to tell a 3-year-old they shouldn’t wear a tutu. What better way is there to crush creativity and joy and erode the liberties we’re meant to be standing up for than to start telling people what they can and can’t wear?

So let people wear burkini’s (it’s an improvement on the mankini) , tutu’s or whatever the hell they like. If you don’t like it tough just say nothing, but if it’s as awesome as this kids tutu, take a risk and tell someone they look ace (or not it’s a free country and I’m not going to tell you what to do).

Awesome kid

0

Wenlocks ever watchful eye

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Wenlocks ever watchful eye

Bronze command surveillance Wenlock The London Olympics may be long gone, but the legislation lingers on. Now many of would thing that a word that was invented in ancient Greece might not be subject to copyright, but we’d be wrong. It turns out that as far as the Olympic committee is concerned no one can refer to Olympic Games with out their permission. Now you might thing that only starting in the lat 1800’s that the modern Olympics might be coming a bit late to the party to claim ownership of a tradition millennia old, but it seems they view things differently.

Not only do they claim to have copyright on the name “Olympics”, but they also make sure it’s enacted in legislation whenever a country hosts the games and if you want to take part in the games then you have to agree that they own everything to do with the games. The Olympics Rules stating:
“14 Olympic designations*
An Olympic designation is any visual or audio representation of any association, connection or other link with the Olympic Games, the Olympic Movement, or any constituent thereof.”

And further:
“1.2
Each NOC is responsible to the IOC for the observance, in its country, of Rules 7-14 and BLR 7-14. It shall take steps to prohibit any use of any Olympic properties which would be contrary to such Rules or their Bye-laws. It shall also endeavour to obtain, for the benefit of the IOC, protection of the Olympic properties of the IOC.”

So if you want to play at the Olympics you have to make sure no one else can use anything associated with it, and if you host the games well it will end up in your laws. The “London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006” defines the “Olympic Period”:
“c)the London Olympics period” means the period which—
(i) begins four weeks before the day of the opening ceremony of the Games of the Thirtieth Olympiad that are to take place in 2012, and
(ii) ends with the fifth day after the day of the closing ceremony of the Paralympic Games 2012”
And later goes on to say that:
“(6)
Sections 10 to 18 (including any power to make orders or give directions) shall cease to have effect at the end of the London Olympics period.”
Sections 10 to 18 cover transport only, advertising and use of thing the IOC consider theirs are in later sections and even have their very own act the “Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995” . So the special and increasing protection of words associated with the Olympics are still in force, which is just plain silly especially as it would seem that the IOC don’t have a sense of humour and have taken against the awesome Lancashire Hot Pots and their 2008 Classic “The Beer Olympics” or as they now call it following threat of legal proceedings – “The Beer “International Non-Profit, Sporting Quad Yearly Event” ”

Amazing how language and humour can be ring fenced and whittled away by special interest groups pushing things into legislation on a “temporary” basis.

0