ronmcd wrote:
https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/875734091337015297

Fucking Bullingdon ballbag. But entirely predictable, given the fucking arrogant "born to rule" mentality that silver-spoon twatspackles like him have.

They're now not including deaths from smoke inhalation? Isn't that what most people who die in fires die from? And knowing this as he must, just how much of a mendacious cock womble is Boris?

Fallible wrote:They're now not including deaths from smoke inhalation? Isn't that what most people who die in fires die from? And knowing this as he must, just how much of a mendacious cock womble is Boris?

Yeah, about two thirds of deaths in serious fires are from smoke inhalation, so feel free to multiply their back of a fag packet figure by three.

Has anyone got actual information as opposed to regurgitating social media commentry?

The closest I find is this: from the London fire brigade.
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/fire-facts.asp


So if smoke related deaths, means that overall deaths are increasing - there must have been a relative increase in inhalation related deaths. Surely this would be important to explore - I am unable to find the evidence to support the rant above.

Here is how deaths are apparently counted in National statistics:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/610453/fire-statistics-definitions.pdf


Fatalities and Casualties
Fire-related fatalities are, in general, those that would not have otherwise
occurred had there not been a fire. i.e. ‘no fire = no death’.
This includes any fatal casualty which is the direct or indirect result of injuries
caused by a fire incident. Even if the fatal casualty dies subsequently, any
fatality whose cause is attributed to a fire is included, sometimes following
road traffic collisions. For the purpose of publications, published figures
include the number of fatal casualties which were either recorded as ‘firerelated’
or ‘don’t know’, grouped together as fire-related deaths; thus
excluding only those that were recorded as ‘not fire-related’.

Yet more evidence that the initial assertion is nonsense.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/611182/fire-statistics-england-1516-hosb0517.pdf


3.2. Cause of death
 The most common cause of fire-related fatalities in 2015/16 (where the cause of
death was known) was ‘overcome by gas or smoke’ (given in 36 per cent of firerelated
fatalities, compared with 35 per cent in 2014/15). (Source: FIRE0504).
 The causes of death ‘burns’ alone (62 fire-related fatalities) or the combination of
‘burns and overcome by gas and smoke’ (62 fire-related fatalities), accounted for 41
per cent of all fire-related fatalities. The number of fire-related fatalities caused by a
combination of burns and overcome by gas or smoke increased by 35 per cent (16
fatalities) since 2014/15.

Yep the tory method; keep moving the goal posts. Done it in health, education and social services. The obvious one is the four hour rule in A&E. How often has that changed?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Yep the tory method; keep moving the goal posts. Done it in health, education and social services. The obvious one is the four hour rule in A&E. How often has that changed?

Yet again wrong example. Of the many things that have been sidelined (18 week rule e.g.) the one that has not changed is the 4 hour rule - it has been missed because of interference and under-funding - but the measure and its role as a measure of service delivery by individual trusts, has not changed.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/

Pebble wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Yep the tory method; keep moving the goal posts. Done it in health, education and social services. The obvious one is the four hour rule in A&E. How often has that changed?

Yet again wrong example. Of the many things that have been sidelined (18 week rule e.g.) the one that has not changed is the 4 hour rule - it has been missed because of interference and under-funding - but the measure and its role as a measure of service delivery by individual trusts, has not changed.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/

Nope there is now the 95% rule. Hospitals only have to achieve 95% on "urgent health problems" with no definition given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-hour_target_in_emergency_departments

Why quote the organisation itself?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Pebble wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Yep the tory method; keep moving the goal posts. Done it in health, education and social services. The obvious one is the four hour rule in A&E. How often has that changed?

Yet again wrong example. Of the many things that have been sidelined (18 week rule e.g.) the one that has not changed is the 4 hour rule - it has been missed because of interference and under-funding - but the measure and its role as a measure of service delivery by individual trusts, has not changed.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/

Nope there is now the 95% rule. Hospitals only have to achieve 95% on "urgent health problems" with no definition given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-hour_target_in_emergency_departments

Why quote the organisation itself?

Because they generally have the most accurate information, whether spun or not - wiki is so much more reliable!
I was not aware of the minor changes prior to the latest proposal - that would represent a significant change - but oddly would adversely affect the published figures, since that would remove the vast majority of simple cases that are used to expand the numerator in the calculated figure, so would actually work in practice to focus the efforts on the area where problems exist. However, like all measures, that which is not measured suffers from lack of scrutiny (the main argument against such measures from the beginning).

http://www.qualitywatch.org.uk/indicator/ae-waiting-times

A&E in England suffers from the fact that all patients who cannot get a GP appointment have to attend A&E which means the system gets clogged up by trivial cases. Changing the rule has meant that serious cases can take priority and get through within 4 hours and bugger the rest and only 95% have to achieve that. The goals have been well and truly moved also taking into account the lack of definition.

Scot Dutchy wrote:A&E in England suffers from the fact that all patients who cannot get a GP appointment have to attend A&E which means the system gets clogged up by trivial cases. Changing the rule has meant that serious cases can take priority and get through within 4 hours and bugger the rest and only 95% have to achieve that. The goals have been well and truly moved also taking into account the lack of definition.

One possible reason for the lack of clarity:

http://news.sky.com/story/has-health-secretary-jeremy-hunt-retreated-on-nhs-four-hour-target-10723517

Scot Dutchy wrote:A&E in England suffers from the fact that all patients who cannot get a GP appointment have to attend A&E which means the system gets clogged up by trivial cases.

No, that's not true. We also have a walk-in service for minor illness and injury. An appointment is not necessary, you just turn up and they triage you on arrival. If what you have is bad enough, they then send you to A&E. Otherwise they deal with it then and there. We also have a system where you can have consultations with pharmacists for minor medical matters.

Fallible wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:A&E in England suffers from the fact that all patients who cannot get a GP appointment have to attend A&E which means the system gets clogged up by trivial cases.

No, that's not true. We also have a walk-in service for minor illness and injury. An appointment is not necessary, you just turn up and they triage you on arrival. If what you have is bad enough, they then send you to A&E. Otherwise they deal with it then and there. We also have a system where you can have consultations with pharmacists for minor medical matters.

So what is blocking the system?

Missing the target

According to the BMA[6] the main reasons for not reaching this target are:

Not enough inpatient beds
Delayed discharges
Delay in accessing specialist opinion
Not enough nurses
Not enough middle grade doctors
Department too small
Delay in accessing diagnostic services

In 2014, research conducted by QualityWatch, a joint programme from the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation, tracked 41 million visits to A&E departments in England in order to better understand the pressures leading to increased waiting times and breaches of the four-hour target. Researchers identified a rise in older patients and related increase in long-term conditions as key factors, alongside extremes of temperature (in both summer and winter) and crowding at peak times. They noted that the majority of pressure was falling on major A&E units, and proposed that rising demand as a result of ageing and population growth may be pushing already stretched emergency departments beyond maximum capacity.[13]

Dont seem to help much?

Another blow to the NHS in London:

Most of central London hospital to be sold off, plans reveal

Exclusive: Charing Cross hospital to be cut to 13% of current size and services diverted to facilities around the city, documents show

Almost all of a central London hospital is to be sold and its services diverted to already stretched facilities around the capital under plans for NHS modernisation seen by the Guardian.

Charing Cross hospital, a flagship NHS facility in the heart of London, is to be cut to just 13% of its current size under proposals contained in sustainability and transformation plans published last year in 44 areas across England.

Many of the officially published plans lacked precise detail about how local services would change, but internal supporting documents seen by the Guardian reveal the scale of the closures at the London site.

The proposals claim much of the care currently offered at Charing Cross can be transferred to “community settings” such as local GP services, but health campaigners and clinicians say the transformation could endanger patients.

The documents include a map detailing how 13% of the current hospital site will remain, with the rest of its prime real estate in central London sold off. The plan is to introduce the changes after 2021.

NHS chiefs have stated as recently as March that “there have never been any plans to close Charing Cross hospital”, and in March 2015 the then prime minister, David Cameron, said it was “scaremongering” to suggest that the Charing Cross A&E departmentwas earmarked for closure. The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, echoed the claims.

However, in the internal NHS documents the apparent downgrading of Charing Cross is outlined in great detail.

More...

When a tory says it is not going to happen well you definitely it will.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:A&E in England suffers from the fact that all patients who cannot get a GP appointment have to attend A&E which means the system gets clogged up by trivial cases.

No, that's not true. We also have a walk-in service for minor illness and injury. An appointment is not necessary, you just turn up and they triage you on arrival. If what you have is bad enough, they then send you to A&E. Otherwise they deal with it then and there. We also have a system where you can have consultations with pharmacists for minor medical matters.

So what is blocking the system?

Missing the target

According to the BMA[6] the main reasons for not reaching this target are:

Not enough inpatient beds
Delayed discharges
Delay in accessing specialist opinion
Not enough nurses
Not enough middle grade doctors
Department too small
Delay in accessing diagnostic services

In 2014, research conducted by QualityWatch, a joint programme from the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation, tracked 41 million visits to A&E departments in England in order to better understand the pressures leading to increased waiting times and breaches of the four-hour target. Researchers identified a rise in older patients and related increase in long-term conditions as key factors, alongside extremes of temperature (in both summer and winter) and crowding at peak times. They noted that the majority of pressure was falling on major A&E units, and proposed that rising demand as a result of ageing and population growth may be pushing already stretched emergency departments beyond maximum capacity.[13]

Dont seem to help much?

I'm correcting something you said that was factually wrong, not arguing there are no problems.

Oof

May has succeeded in doing the one thing the Tory Party dreaded most of all - making socialism look respectable. That's why she's being lined up for political assassination by the Tory Party's eminence grises. Trouble is, they don't have an anointed successor that isn't going to be seriously damaged in turn.

The 1922 Committee was doubtless looking for a seamless and trouble-free means of elevating Bullingdon Ballbag Boris to the top slot, but even someone as nakedly covetous of the PM's job as him, realises that at the moment, it's a poisoned chalice. Likewise, the Osborne Fan Club within the Tory Party won't want to risk their chosen messiah's reputation, in a political environment within which the brand of fuck-you crony capitalism he gave such a boost to, is now as popular as leprosy.

As a consequence, finding a minion to push under the bus, by elevating him to the top job to try and exorcise the toxic stench May has generated, will be exercising their minds wonderfully. Trouble is, who the hell is going to be stupid enough to step up to the plate, whilst that smouldering ruin is a visible canker sore on the landscape? Most of the supposedly "heavyweight" players will rather put in a claim for Universal Credit than take May's place, and a good few of those have their own toxic legacies to worry about. The return of Iain Drunken Shit, the Grim Reaper for thousands of disabled people? Not a fucking chance. A resurrection of Cameron? He's too busy rubbing his cock against his offshore millions, and dreaming of pigs. William Hague? Bwahahahaha.

As for the more visible Cabinet members, what a fucking bag of cyanide-laced liquorice allsorts to have to choose from - Jeremy Hunt, the Shitfinder General of the NHS; Michael Gove, the mutant Teletubby who wants to kill more badgers, sell off forests to corporate vampires and expand fracking; Philip Hammond, a nonentity who looks like a diseased stork, and has all the charisma of a fly-blown cow pat; Michael Fallon, who was made to look a total prick, when he thought he was pouring snark on the words of Jeremy Corbyn, only to be told the words in question were those of his Cabinet colleague Boris Johnson; David Davis, whose plans for Brexit constitute a delusional fantasy of galactic proportions, and who looks like a combination of dodgy used car dealer and defrocked Catholic kiddy fiddler.

Outside that, you have Amber Rudd, who probably will not be best pleased at having to clean up May's shitty nappies a second time, after her election campaign experience, and Andrea Leadsom, whose remarks about men in childcare, and her attempt to stick the knife in May during the leadership campaign make her about as palatable as a turd sandwich. Cast the net wider, and you have an assortment of sociopaths with all the charm of a Komodo Dragon sizing up a goat for lunch.

I'm tempted to suggest that in desperation, the Tory Party offers the job to Nicola Sturgeon. That way, the assorted micro-peens in the Cabinet can continue having unrequited dominatrix fantasies, while simultaneously enjoying shifting the blame onto her if anything goes pear shaped, though I suspect Nicola Sturgeon will be the first to piss herself laughing if they do. Trouble is, Nicola Sturgeon could probably do a better job standing on her head than any of the Tory Party's retinue of psychotic fucktards.

Fuck me, if only someone would pay me five grand a time to deliver this on the stage.

But who in the other parties would be insane enough to do this job?

It's impossible to invoke Brexit in a way half the country wants without the other half wanting to assassinate you , not to mention bankrupt the country

The problem is the children, ie the electorate they need to grow up fast