On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:13:49 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
 wrote:

>In article ,
>   Janet Baraclough  wrote:

<snip>

>> > Where does their funding come from? Could it possibly be from central
>> > government? Does central government decide how to divide up tax money?
>
>>      Here you are on the internet, where your entire country's system of
>> governance  is laid out for all to read.
>> Including,  NHS organisation and funding from top to bottom. Why not
>> take a look? 
>
>So I could find out exactly how the govt divides up <all> its (our) money?
>I don't really need that amount of information.  The point is that the govt
>decides how much money to spend on what and if the NHS cannot afford to
>clean properly without removal of facilities at times when they are needed
>then <it's not because there isn't enough money in the system>, it's
>because the govt - and/or NHS management - thinks that other things are
>more important than some aspects of the nation's health. Priorities. And, I
>would imagine, expert knowledge or the lack of it.  Govt/mgt view is
>apparently that half a million pounds is better spent on sailing a bit of
>an Arctic island rock around the south west coast than buying a few more
>cleaners; I disagree - I don't think it has a cat in hell's chance of
>persuading the public to stop wasting resources and that is its only
>virtue; just one example. There are other bigger examples (eg 2012) but I
>do not have to know all the details of the entire country's budget to be
>aware of some of them.

Why don't you take Janet's advice?

Would you prefer to turn the clock back to the mid-1990s when the NHS was under
funded, medical staff were imported from the third world because insufficient
were trained in Britain?
-- 

Martin

In article ,
   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:13:49 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>  wrote:

> >In article ,
> >   Janet Baraclough  wrote:

> <snip>

> >> > Where does their funding come from? Could it possibly be from central
> >> > government? Does central government decide how to divide up tax money?
> >
> >>      Here you are on the internet, where your entire country's system of
> >> governance  is laid out for all to read.
> >> Including,  NHS organisation and funding from top to bottom. Why not
> >> take a look? 
> >
> >So I could find out exactly how the govt divides up <all> its (our) money?
> >I don't really need that amount of information.  The point is that the govt
> >decides how much money to spend on what and if the NHS cannot afford to
> >clean properly without removal of facilities at times when they are needed
> >then <it's not because there isn't enough money in the system>, it's
> >because the govt - and/or NHS management - thinks that other things are
> >more important than some aspects of the nation's health. Priorities. And, I
> >would imagine, expert knowledge or the lack of it.  Govt/mgt view is
> >apparently that half a million pounds is better spent on sailing a bit of
> >an Arctic island rock around the south west coast than buying a few more
> >cleaners; I disagree - I don't think it has a cat in hell's chance of
> >persuading the public to stop wasting resources and that is its only
> >virtue; just one example. There are other bigger examples (eg 2012) but I
> >do not have to know all the details of the entire country's budget to be
> >aware of some of them.

> Why don't you take Janet's advice?

> Would you prefer to turn the clock back to the mid-1990s when the NHS was under
> funded, medical staff were imported from the third world because insufficient
> were trained in Britain?

How do you reach that conclusion from what I said? I did not say that there
wasn't enough money in the system or that I wanted the NHS underfunded; on
the contrary, I said there was money held by govt but if it was not <made>
available then that was because those with the purse strings had other
priorities - priorities which, in some cases, I did not agree with. I find
it hard to believe that a rundown of the NHS funding will convince me that
half a million spent carting a boatload of Arctic rocks around the SW coast
is better use of money than financing more hospital cleaning however other
money is spent. I agree that knowledge of NHS funds may tell me how much
<is> spent on cleaning; it will not, however, tell me how much <should be>
spent unless I have the technical knowledge to analyse exactly how much
that lack of cleaning will cost in dealing with the resulting infection
outbreaks. 

Jane

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:09:42 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
 wrote:

>In article ,
>   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:13:49 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>>  wrote:
>
>> >In article ,
>> >   Janet Baraclough  wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>> >> > Where does their funding come from? Could it possibly be from central
>> >> > government? Does central government decide how to divide up tax money?
>> >
>> >>      Here you are on the internet, where your entire country's system of
>> >> governance  is laid out for all to read.
>> >> Including,  NHS organisation and funding from top to bottom. Why not
>> >> take a look? 
>> >
>> >So I could find out exactly how the govt divides up <all> its (our) money?
>> >I don't really need that amount of information.  The point is that the govt
>> >decides how much money to spend on what and if the NHS cannot afford to
>> >clean properly without removal of facilities at times when they are needed
>> >then <it's not because there isn't enough money in the system>, it's
>> >because the govt - and/or NHS management - thinks that other things are
>> >more important than some aspects of the nation's health. Priorities. And, I
>> >would imagine, expert knowledge or the lack of it.  Govt/mgt view is
>> >apparently that half a million pounds is better spent on sailing a bit of
>> >an Arctic island rock around the south west coast than buying a few more
>> >cleaners; I disagree - I don't think it has a cat in hell's chance of
>> >persuading the public to stop wasting resources and that is its only
>> >virtue; just one example. There are other bigger examples (eg 2012) but I
>> >do not have to know all the details of the entire country's budget to be
>> >aware of some of them.
>
>> Why don't you take Janet's advice?
>
>> Would you prefer to turn the clock back to the mid-1990s when the NHS was under
>> funded, medical staff were imported from the third world because insufficient
>> were trained in Britain?
>
>How do you reach that conclusion from what I said? I did not say that there
>wasn't enough money in the system or that I wanted the NHS underfunded; on
>the contrary, I said there was money held by govt but if it was not <made>
>available then that was because those with the purse strings had other
>priorities - priorities which, in some cases, I did not agree with. I find
>it hard to believe that a rundown of the NHS funding will convince me that
>half a million spent carting a boatload of Arctic rocks around the SW coast
>is better use of money than financing more hospital cleaning however other
>money is spent. I agree that knowledge of NHS funds may tell me how much
><is> spent on cleaning; it will not, however, tell me how much <should be>
>spent unless I have the technical knowledge to analyse exactly how much
>that lack of cleaning will cost in dealing with the resulting infection
>outbreaks. 

If you had taken the advice given to you, by now you would know that Arctic
rocks are not funded by the NHS budget. I'd say that you are getting out of your
depth.
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:03:38 +0000, Sacha  wrote:

>On 2009-11-05 11:19:44 +0000, Martin <me@address.invalid> said:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:09:42 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>>  wrote:
>> <snip>I find
>>> it hard to believe that a rundown of the NHS funding will convince me that
>>> half a million spent carting a boatload of Arctic rocks around the SW coast
>>> is better use of money than financing more hospital cleaning however other
>>> money is spent. I agree that knowledge of NHS funds may tell me how much
>>> <is> spent on cleaning; it will not, however, tell me how much <should be>
>>> spent unless I have the technical knowledge to analyse exactly how much
>>> that lack of cleaning will cost in dealing with the resulting infection
>>> outbreaks.
>> 
>> If you had taken the advice given to you, by now you would know that Arctic
>> rocks are not funded by the NHS budget. I'd say that you are getting 
>> out of your
>> depth.
>
>Oh please!  That isn't what Jane said and it's really desperate even to 
>suggest that she did. 

Janet told Jane everything Jane wants to know is available on the web and that
Jane could participate in the activities of her local NHS trust AFAIR.

> Given that she is always polite and reasonable 
>in the face of some quite insulting and patronising treatment, I'd say 
>these responses suggest she's too close for comfort.

Count the number of times she has mentioned the Arctic rocks in this discussion.

Do you find Arctic rocks relevant to a discussion on NHS funding or this group
the place to ask for a detailed explanation in how government funding works?
-- 

Martin

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:13:57 +0000, Sacha  wrote:

>On 2009-11-05 12:19:08 +0000, Martin <me@address.invalid> said:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:03:38 +0000, Sacha  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2009-11-05 11:19:44 +0000, Martin <me@address.invalid> said:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:09:42 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> <snip>I find
>>>>> it hard to believe that a rundown of the NHS funding will convince me that
>>>>> half a million spent carting a boatload of Arctic rocks around the SW coast
>>>>> is better use of money than financing more hospital cleaning however other
>>>>> money is spent. I agree that knowledge of NHS funds may tell me how much
>>>>> <is> spent on cleaning; it will not, however, tell me how much <should be>
>>>>> spent unless I have the technical knowledge to analyse exactly how much
>>>>> that lack of cleaning will cost in dealing with the resulting infection
>>>>> outbreaks.
>>>> 
>>>> If you had taken the advice given to you, by now you would know that Arctic
>>>> rocks are not funded by the NHS budget. I'd say that you are getting
>>>> out of your
>>>> depth.
>>> 
>>> Oh please!  That isn't what Jane said and it's really desperate even to
>>> suggest that she did.
>> 
>> Janet told Jane everything Jane wants to know is available on the web and that
>> Jane could participate in the activities of her local NHS trust AFAIR.
>
>That's what I mean by patronising. 

I didn't see it as being patronising. I may have had differences with Janet in
the past, but in this case I thought she gave good advice.

> Jane is clearly a woman of 
>intelligence who probably has at least as good a grasp of local 
>politics as anywhere here and probably better, given that she lives in 
>England and Janet doesn't.  Do you?

Do I what? I understand that British government ministries are each given
budgets and that the NHS probably gets a lot more than most. I don't see any
connection between "Arctic rocks" and the NHS. The NHS is not funded by the
local authority.

>> 
>>> Given that she is always polite and reasonable
>>> in the face of some quite insulting and patronising treatment, I'd say
>>> these responses suggest she's too close for comfort.
>> 
>> Count the number of times she has mentioned the Arctic rocks in this 
>> discussion.
>> 
>> Do you find Arctic rocks relevant to a discussion on NHS funding or this group
>> the place to ask for a detailed explanation in how government funding works?
>
>I find the patronising-verging-on-insulting remarks, comments and 
>answers to be unnecessary and inappropriate.  But not, given the 
>sources, unusual.  As you are one of those extending this discussion, 
>presumably you consider this to be a suitable place to do so.  If you 
>don't, perhaps you had better say so and withdraw, lest you be 
>considered hypocritical.

I tried to bow out of this discussion several days ago. Maybe I was being
patronising in suggesting that this wasn't the right group. It wasn't my
intention.
-- 

Martin

In article ,
   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:09:42 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
>  wrote:

> >In article ,
> >   Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:13:49 +0000 (GMT), Jane Gillett
> >>  wrote:
> >
> >> >In article ,
> >> >   Janet Baraclough  wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >
> >> >> > Where does their funding come from? Could it possibly be from central
> >> >> > government? Does central government decide how to divide up tax money?
> >> >
> >> >>      Here you are on the internet, where your entire country's system of
> >> >> governance  is laid out for all to read.
> >> >> Including,  NHS organisation and funding from top to bottom. Why not
> >> >> take a look? 
> >> >
> >> >So I could find out exactly how the govt divides up <all> its (our) money?
> >> >I don't really need that amount of information.  The point is that the govt
> >> >decides how much money to spend on what and if the NHS cannot afford to
> >> >clean properly without removal of facilities at times when they are needed
> >> >then <it's not because there isn't enough money in the system>, it's
> >> >because the govt - and/or NHS management - thinks that other things are
> >> >more important than some aspects of the nation's health. Priorities. And, I
> >> >would imagine, expert knowledge or the lack of it.  Govt/mgt view is
> >> >apparently that half a million pounds is better spent on sailing a bit of
> >> >an Arctic island rock around the south west coast than buying a few more
> >> >cleaners; I disagree - I don't think it has a cat in hell's chance of
> >> >persuading the public to stop wasting resources and that is its only
> >> >virtue; just one example. There are other bigger examples (eg 2012) but I
> >> >do not have to know all the details of the entire country's budget to be
> >> >aware of some of them.
> >
> >> Why don't you take Janet's advice?
> >
> >> Would you prefer to turn the clock back to the mid-1990s when the NHS was under
> >> funded, medical staff were imported from the third world because insufficient
> >> were trained in Britain?
> >
> >How do you reach that conclusion from what I said? I did not say that there
> >wasn't enough money in the system or that I wanted the NHS underfunded; on
> >the contrary, I said there was money held by govt but if it was not <made>
> >available then that was because those with the purse strings had other
> >priorities - priorities which, in some cases, I did not agree with. I find
> >it hard to believe that a rundown of the NHS funding will convince me that
> >half a million spent carting a boatload of Arctic rocks around the SW coast
> >is better use of money than financing more hospital cleaning however other
> >money is spent. I agree that knowledge of NHS funds may tell me how much
> ><is> spent on cleaning; it will not, however, tell me how much <should be>
> >spent unless I have the technical knowledge to analyse exactly how much
> >that lack of cleaning will cost in dealing with the resulting infection
> >outbreaks. 

> If you had taken the advice given to you, by now you would know that Arctic
> rocks are not funded by the NHS budget. I'd say that you are getting out of your
> depth.

No. NHS is funded by taxes. Arctic rocks are funded by taxes. It's not
beyond the wit of man to shift some tax funds from one to the other; just a
matter of priorities. Budgets are man-made categories not natural laws.

Jane

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:05:36 +0000, Sacha  wrote:

>IOW - no wish to debate

Sorry, but what the hell has this got to do with food and drink
anyway?