So, Fare Thee Well Cynthiaâ¦
Bower-ed out at last from the National Health Service talent show; no longer will we hear the strident tones of Gloria Gaynorâs âI will surviveâ, instead she is lisping the lyrics â âIâm just a fool whose intentions are good, Oh! Lord! Please donât let me be misunderstoodâ as she steps down from the national Karaoke stage. The raucous cries of âGerrâer offâ, proved too much for her in the end, the voterâs votes are in, and it is a resounding ânul pointsâ for Our Cynthia.
She has taken some of her backing group with her; the Ms Finney, her former lead singer, otherwise known as Deputy Chief Executive of the CQC, was last night sacked from her new sinecure in Nominet the domain registering company. Ms Bower had already moved onto another Quango, âSkills for Healthâ, despite her son saying âyou need to put your feet up, Mumâ when she resigned from the CQC with her £65,000 a year pension â the lure of another dip into the public purse proved too much for her, a couple of hundred thousand a year for guarding the interests of the NHS (Ed: Wasnât she supposed to be guarding the interests of the public who use the NHS?) by turning a blind eye when it made âstatistical blipsâ like knocking off 1200 patients who should have been home enjoying life with their families, or ignoring the whistle blower Terry Bryan when he tried to tell of the appalling abuse meted out to vulnerable patients in Winterbourne View â the final straw was the disclosure of a report, initially denied, into the deaths of 16 babies at a hospital in Cumbria.
There is only so much that one woman can do to conceal the deficiencies of the NHS.
She had done her best. One of her first acts was to save £44 million from the regulatorâs budget by sacking all those who might have weird notions of carrying out any investigations into the NHS. A noble act, it ensured that no one with any qualifications went anywhere near the hospitals, no inspections were done during her reign. Instead, she set up a brilliant system of unqualified bods with spikey hair and shinny suits working from home using laptops to check the self assessment forms that the hospitals sent them. She called it a âfield force modelâ and said it represented âexpertise at the intersection of the axesâ. Inspired!
When Private Eye asked via a FOI what qualifications these suits had, she said it would âtake 20 minutesâ to ask each member of her âfield forceâ and that would take them away from their âhorizon scanningâ âproactively testing intelligenceâ from the hospitals. Could any other woman have so comprehensively mastered the art of management double-speak?
With the hospitals now engaged in writing their own âend of term reportsâ, and an army of ex double glazing salesmen who couldnât spell âpremature deathâ checking them to ensure that no one said anything daft like âsorry about the 1200, couldnât be helpedâ, there was just one thing left to do:
Agree £11.2 million in severance pay agreements with the Treasury for disgruntled employees who might have spouted off defamatory outpourings about her beloved NHS. It is a testament to Ms Bowerâs skills at writing double speak that the Nation Audit Office have now agreed that contrary to popular belief â none of the golden handshakes actually included a âgagging clauseââ¦they were just written in such a way that the benighted employees thought they did!
âSome people we spoke to who had been offered, or accepted, compromise agreements have felt gagged.
âAn organisationâs culture, the events leading up to the person being offered an agreement, and the wording of the agreements contributed to whether the individual felt gagged.
âLegal advice to the employee is a prerequisite of making a compromise agreement legally enforceable. However, the individuals we spoke to felt that it was not generally made clear that confidentiality clauses do not prevent employees from raising legitimate public interest concerns.â
Atta girl Cynthia!
What now for âour beloved NHSâ, without Cynthia guarding its patients reputation, will it be revealed to the world as a parallel universe where citizens enter in mediocre health, and after a few short weeks lying in their own faeces, hooked up to intravenous drips helpfully doctored with poison by the nursing staff, fed inedible food, they are discharged with incurable MRSA to die in their loved ones arms â or will Jeremy Hunt manage to find another dedicated trooper like Our Cynthia to churn out Stasi reports telling us how wonderful it all is?
I still remember the stinging condemnation from the Head of Health at Unison when someone suggested â âgaspâ! â emulating the French part-privatised system which has successfully kept me alive for the past two years.
âPatients would be little more than consumersâ!
Canât be having that can we?
Can anybody tell me which of these pictures is Cynthia Bower, comedienne, and which is Jo Brand, comedienne? I canât risk labelling them incorrectly. Ms Brand might sue me.
June 23, 2013 at 05:41
-
Good thing I saw this before I left!
Anna, as ever, youâre very kind
Dr Cromarty. The written word is such a poor vehicle for conveying content,
intent, tone and humour. Might i apologise for whichever of mine may have been
lost in getting to where we were and for what might have appeared, insofar as
either, or both, a lack or excess thereof caused you such irritation? wed
probably get on famously if we were able to do this down at the pub. So may I
blow you a great big xxx! No emoticons for that, Iâm afraid
Iâm glad that this opportunity has arisen as I have always hated rows, and
even more so their being left unclosed.
Got to go. Scotland beckons and I must leave!
June 23, 2013 at 15:40
-
Thatâs not really an apology is it? Itâs s half-hearted
-Anthony-Blair-Iâm-sorry-if-youâre-offended-kinda-apology. You called me a
haffleen and implied I couldnât follow an argument (âThe Cat Sat On The
Matâ). Both are offensive and rude and you donât seem to grasp that.
If youâre going to apologise, do it properly. Your written word in this
case conveys merely weasel sentiments.
-
June 23, 2013 at 15:48
-
That said, Iâm sure this is all very boring for everyone else, so letâs
call it a day, eh?
June 24, 2013 at 22:29
-
@Ho Hum: I had hoped that when you mentioned going on holiday it would
have been something like Paragliding⦠over Afghanistan, or Swimming with Red
Sea Sharks â without the benefit of a protective cage.
Oh well, we can only hope that Mr. (or is it Ms. or Mrs.) Hum essays a
few âhome truthsâ of the kind expressed here â in the direction of a
belligerent Glaswegian or two.
June 22, 2013 at 17:02
-
@ we give too much to foreigners @
Itâs maybe because we no longer take enough off the foreignersâ¦â¦ as we did
when we WERE the richest country in the worldâ¦
We are still the sixth richest I believe, or thereabouts. As the Brazilians
are noticing, the powers-that-be can always find the money for their grandiose
projects like the Olympics or wars in the Middle East or another
re-organisation of the NHS.
June 22, 2013 at 10:51
-
And we armchair warriors are really making a difference?
I want to keep this short. It needs a huge essay, but I cannot be bothered
doing that.
There are millions of us. We all have our own ideas as to what is right or
wrong, moral or immoral. Our politicians appeal to the average. Our mass
retailers cater to the masses. Sure there are niche markets, which since we
are so numerous, businessmen can target profitably. But where we seek to cater
to the common denominator, that is usually the lowest common denominator.
And so with the worlds third largest employer â the two bigger ones being
located in countries with a billion or more citizens each, to our 70 or so
million. They provide a health service that caters to the average. I donât buy
chicken from Asda, but I donât expect to pay Asda price for organic chicken
from M & S either. Some people can do all their shopping at Lidl.
We have a bit of a problem. Health demands are not equal amongst all
sectors of the population. Drug addiction effects, stabbing wounds, skiing
injuries. I would suspect you could conceive a model which would predict which
sector was more likely to suffer any of these disproportionately. The only two
health issues which are universal are birth and death themselves. So we have
this notion of a âfreeâ universal health service to treat all these
conditions. Why would it be expected to make everyone happy? It caters to the
average. Health care is better than many countries â we get health tourists â
it is worse than others. The French state takes the highest proportion of its
countryâs GDP unto itself in the EU. The German system incorporates people
paying for health insurance. Do we want to pay much higher taxes? We cannot
expect to fly business class on Ryanair. But for many people just having a
seat is enough.
So, I agree there are better systems. I agree that we are not all eating
organic chicken. But we want to pay Asda price for Waitrose food. It doesnât
add up.
People. People do what is expected of them. Schools teach to target. Our
police create easy motoring crimes because they are easy to solve. Their
targets are met â oh and they have fine targets too, work that genius of
cynicism out. The only proven motivator of improving quality is the profit
model. But the great âsuccessâ of private provision in our society calls even
that into question. Our former state industries may arguably have been better
run for the average citizen under the previous owners. So you can see the
great fear that people have of privatisation in the health system. Those of us
with expensive conditions will not get insurance or will be bankrupted to pay
for treatment ( see care home provision already ). Add to that a vested
interest of heavily unionised, great working conditions employees in the
health service, and you are on a hiding to nothing trying to reform the
present system.
Really the NHS is a symptom of a far wider malaise in the UK. We are no
longer the richest country in the world, and we cannot afford to provide free
unlimited services to everyone. Its not just because we donât take enough off
the rich, or we give too much to foreigners. We are fed a line of bull from
our keen to please leaders that the milk and honey will always flow. Ours will
not be the last civilisation to collapse.
I would argue for a bit of reality checking. We need to stop pretending we
can police the world. We need to elect people who are not primarily interested
in just themselves. We need to make the most of the last drops of oil, to
reform our whole social system completely. There are systems where people take
responsibility for their own welfare. The state can encourage people with
co-payments and tax breaks to build up their own funds for health care and
education provision. But over a couple of generations it has to be clearly
understood that the state is not going to be nanny any longer.
I am glad I am not leaving school this summer. For many of the kids, laden
with A grades and a poor education, their impeding debt funded degree in media
studies is unlikely to find then a high paying job in the banking sector. But
I would wonder why I was paying National Insurance at all if Iâm going to be
killed in an NHS hospital before I reach 100 and claim my pension.
Cover ups are normal in every business. Do you think Pizza hut will be
putting that mouse photograph on its posters? How many years have Google spent
not being evil? Let those of us who are without sin cast the first stone.
People die in private hospitals too. My accountant got blood poisoning when he
was getting a simple knee op in a private hospital ( a good one too! ). I am
very sorry for the victims of the current scandal, but in a few months it will
be forgotten. The story will fade and the papers will have found something
else to whip up the mob. Nothing will change. But until we all wake up and
learn that Milton Friedman was right, we will still get Asda price health
care. Until the IMF comes calling at least.
June 22, 2013 at 08:32
-
In a previous incarnation (up until 2000) I was a member of a body
responsible for inspecting one aspect of NHS hospitals. We gave an adverse
report on our aspect of one hospital. It didnât help a policy drive emanating
from the NHS centre. Very heavy pressure to reverse it, and we wouldnât until
we were satisfied changes were made. Lo and behold within a year, just after I
left the organisation, our body and others like it had the power to actually
visit the hospitals we were âinspectingâ taken away.
There is very strong pressure to make any body such as ours up to major
ones like the CQC toe the line, but deniably. Then if it goes pear shaped, it
wasnât the centreâs fault, after all the body is independent isnât it?
- June 22, 2013 at 10:50
-
Every government i worked under for the last 30 odd years tried to Copper
bottom its underwear by restructures aimed at little more than palming off
responsibility for the things that go wrong, whilst maintaining control, and
the taking of credit when things go right. Patients and clients hardly
figure in that as real people
And the people who do manage to keep the lid on things are the ones who
rise up, be they really good or bad. The problem for the good ones is that
they find it difficult to square their conscience â I know one who
consciously moved down a notch because of what they found themselves
expected to do, and some get the heave, one in particular from personal
experience stands out as a classic example, when they reach the point they
canât cross and dig their heels in. And when things do go agley, some people
get âshiftedâ out of harms way, maybe more aptly put as swept under the
carpet to keep them out of public view and minimise the risk of any dirt
hitting the politicos
Thatâs no different from elsewhere, and the ROOT cause is top management,
the politicians, who seem willing to do anything, and tread on anyone, who
wonât wash their underwear for them. They make for great role models. Itâs
almost something to cry about when the last honourable politician one can
think on was John Profumo.
June 22, 2013 at 07:24
-
Considering the size of the nhs, this incident is surely just another
little splash in the bucket.
Somewhere between 1,25 and 1,5 million work
for the nhs depending on which numbers you find + contractors. About one in
twenty of our working population. Plenty of opportunities for subversion of
any service ethic.
Iâm not suggesting the CQC fiasco is acceptable; just
what will be the next one and how soon?
- June 22, 2013 at 02:10
-
Iâve now had time to read most of the comments. By all means shoot them IF,
and only if, they are properly âconvictedâ, but at the moment, all most of you
are doing is sounding like the average fruitcake in the Daily Mail, whose
purpose in life seems confined to giving viable political ammunition to the
sort of left wing halfwits whose contributions on similar matters seem to
comfortably extend to the apotheosis of such humanitarian luminaries as Dr
Guevara, whose exploits make poor old Crippen a mere amateur
June 22, 2013 at 01:59
-
There seems to be an inexhaustible supply of these hatchet faced women
wanting to control how we live. They are in the tobacco/alcohol and food
control industries, where do they find them? and why do they all look
alike?
- June 22, 2013 at 00:01
-
Her career path was influenced by moral values instilled during
childhood in a village on the edge of a mining area near Worksop,
Nottinghamshire. Her father was a sub-postmaster, and her mother tended to the
needs of local people who regarded the post office shop as the centre of the
community. âI was brought up as a Christian, although I would not describe
myself as religious in any way now,â Bower says. âMy parents had strong moral
values. It would never have occurred to me in a million years that I would go
into anything other than a caring profession.â
She came under the radicalising influence of feminist politics at
university in the mid-1970s. âI became a social worker because that was the
only label I could give to what I wanted to do.â
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/01/health-social-care-regulator-bower
I suspect Iâd be correct 95% of the time guessing her opinions on anything
vaguely political/social from perusing that article at looking at her rad-fem
fizzog.
- June 22, 2013 at 01:29
-
Jeeeeesshhhh. And Amanda Knox is a witch. Canât you just see it in her
eyes?
- June 22, 2013 at 01:33
-
And Yvette Cooper is a pixie
- June 22, 2013 at 01:39
-
Anyway, didnât you die off recently?
I had hoped haffleens were extinct
-
June 22, 2013 at 08:36
-
Just a hypothesis. Iâll never be able to test it, sadly. The difficulty
is that the public sector is stuffed to the gunnels with Cynthias,
particularly my bit of the NHS. Which goes towards explaining the parlours
state of patient care while monies are spent on commissars to âStand
Together Against Homophobiaâ as the posters announce on every
corridor.
But, hey, Ho Hum, you go ahead and defend a woman who covered up the
failings that killed a bunch of neonates and presided over the deaths of
1200 patients.
-
June 22, 2013 at 09:45
-
Can YOU prove that allegation, as no one else seems to really have so
far, or is it just some extended lefty, victimologically based, Court of
Public Opinion stuff?
- June 22, 2013 at 09:54
-
Did you read the reply? I told you it was a hypothesis Iâll be
unable to test. However, it is based on 20 years of working in the
NHS. When you have equivalent experience, get back to me.
-
June 22, 2013 at 10:22
-
OK, so your â95%â guess throwaway line was just a hypothesis, and
Anda Knox may be a witch too
But if my comment on your last para, the one I was actually
responding to, offends you, my apologies. It just doesnt sound like
too much like a mere hypothesis from here.
And to think that I spent 30+ years working in Health and Social
Care with such an apparent inability to read. Itâs quite shocking
really, when one thinks about how many must have suffered and maybe
even died as a result
- June 22, 2013 at 10:31
-
It becomes clearer then, why you would want to defend Cynth. It
doesnât explain the non-sequiturs (The Daily Mail? Amanda Knox?) or
the mildly hysterical tone.
-
June 22, 2013 at 11:41
-
I have no wish to defend anybody from anything other than the
hysterical drivel, similar to the type that can be read in the tabloid
comments sections, in which people happily condemn others in the most
lurid terms, their condemnations all too often being based on what is
dispensed in the media as fact free accusation or slanted reports
containing well crafted non accusations from judiciously selected
partial sets of facts, or peopleâs willingness to dispense their
condemnatory judgement of others from their inspired insight into
âwell selectedâ photographs, such as the sort of âcanât you just see
sheâs a witch, thereâs evil in her eyesâ stuff that appears in the BTL
wisdom that those with brown sticky stuff between the ears shovel in
such prodigious quantities into such esteemed journals as the Daily
Mail, and being as even handed as ever, into CiF in the Grauniad.
I think that covered almost everything you queried. As to âtoneâ,
well Iâm sure you can imagine for yourself the swivel eyes, tinted
hair, tin foil hat, clogs â and the nice nurse watching from
behind
-
June 22, 2013 at 11:44
-
Tskâ¦I meant to say that the judgements of evil based on photos is a
common theme amongst the Amanda Knox Hate Club. Theyâre too stupid to
wonder why the photos that appeared to illustrate articles were the
ones chosenâ¦â¦.
- June 22, 2013 at 12:15
-
Iâm sorry, youâve lost me. Itâs not about well selected photos,
itâs about covering up negligence and death. This is not a witch hunt
(why are you fixated on witches) its about ensuring that those in a
position of oversight are not corrupted. On the information available
there has been an appalling piece of corruption of a body charged with
ensuring quality of care. If you want to defend it, thatâs your
call.
-
June 22, 2013 at 12:46
-
One of the reasons that I first read this blog was because it
seemed to display a little bit of sense, backed up, even, by some
factual material, when dealing with other recent matters on which the
world and his dog were all for making accusations, and then dishing
out justice, on the mere reports of incidents and allegations, in a
fact free, non evidential, non examinatory basis
So when some of the posts and commentators here start to do
likewise in respect of their own particular betes noires, regardless
of what I think may or may not have really happened, Iâll call out
such âhypocrisyâ for what it is. (As our hostess has said before, she
likes to drop stones in the pond, so one can never be entirely certain
as to whether or not she is evidencing hypocrisy or just sheer
devilment
) The point being made is one of challenging inconsistent principle in
the application of justice, not one of defending whichever betes noire
finds themselves in the dock this time for whatever the mob alleges
that they have done. Didnât you understand what âBy all means shoot
them IF, and only if, they are properly âconvictedââ meant? Or does a
fair examination not matter to you either any more?
As for âhowâ I do that, if your prior reading here of both content
and comment, your general knowledge elsewhere of allied subjects, or
your own lateral thinking abilities are, on a combined basis, such
that they are either insufficient, or too limited, to put all those
things together enough to understand me, thereâs not much I can do
about it. Unless you want some regression to âthe cat sat on the
matâ
If youâre ânewâ here, then I will acknowledge that I may be being a
bit hard, but itâs bloody irritating being accused of defending the
covering up of negligence and death.
- June 22, 2013 at 14:24
-
Sorry, that just wonât do. If you can point to any hypocrisy in
what I have said, good luck. Donât accuse me of that and cut out the
ad hominems while youâre at it. âHaffleensâ and Cat sat on the matâ
indeed! Who the hell do you think you are?
June 22, 2013 at 14:51
-
Never mentioned the Daily Mail in my responses to you, did I? So
you had obviously had read my comments elsewhere â where you raised my
my ânon-sequitursâ. Given that, I had, seemingly mistakenly, assumed
that you might have been able to, with a little help, put them
altogether into some consistent whole. Seems like even the help wasnât
enough
âIf you can point to any hypocrisy in what I have said, good luck.â
I didnât.
As for âhaffeensâ, etc, well, Cromarty is dead, isnât it?
http://ititranslates.com/blog/rare-cromarty-language-dies
Still, look at the positive side, there are some merits in not
having much sense of humour . From my experience, youâll go far in the
NHS.
June 22, 2013 at 18:55
-
Ho Hum,
You still havenât answered Dr Cromarty and other peopleâs points.
You prefer to espouse many opinions but with no provable evidence or,
perhaps web links. My extensive experience of the NHS on behalf of
myself and my sons, one of whom requires frequent medical attention,
accords with that described by Dr Cromarty.
So until you come up with fact-based evidence and/or web links, I
will believe Dr Cromarty rather than your good self.
Come on Ho Hum, you have been commenting on here for some time and
have not been treated badly. However you are almost reaching the point
where you are putting people like me off because of your almost
overabundant flow of verbose opinions that frequently contain ad
hominem attacks but without any evidence to back them up.
Lastly, unlike the way you behave to commenters like Dr Cromarty, I
am going to show you respect as a stranger I do not know and I am not
going to cast unfounded ad hominem insults against you even though I
disagree with your opinions.
Have a nice day now.
-
June 22, 2013 at 20:14
-
My Dear Ms(?) Parrot
Forgive me for being a little confused. Iâm dishing out âUnfounded
ad hominem insultsâ? For obliquely pointing out, in my usual brand of
slightly off the wall humour, albeit more ascerbic than might usually
be the case, that the first comment the good doctor made was an
unfounded ad hominen insult? ie
âI suspect Iâd be correct 95% of the time guessing her opinions on
anything vaguely political/social from perusing that article at
looking at her rad-fem fizzog.â
Or is figuratively kicking someoneâs ârad fem fizzogâ now some sort
of metaphor for playing the ball? I know that those are the same
shape, and that times change, so does it maybe all now depend on whose
balls are being kicked, and by whom, in determining what is, and who
can dish out, acceptable criticism? And, as an aside, you maybe want
to revisit who was really kicking whom.
As for the points being made by others, I spent more than half my
working life working in Health & Social care at AD, DD and
Director level, and I have seen, and had to deal with, more effluent
from all parts of the operational and political spectrum than could
fit in the average dustcart that goes down my street. I have had
people try to kick lumps out of me in a way that makes this look like
someone blowing gently into their teacup. In that context, given this
blogâs general search for underlying truth that often belies the MSMâs
selective reporting and condemnation of the possibly innocent, I
really object to the hypocritical, almost infantile, ramblings of
those who would readily condemn, almost completely out of hand, in
similarly vitriolic vein, those who fit their own pet hate criteria,
when absolutely none of them, or me, know the real facts, and probably
never will.
Itâs nothing personal. Nor am I taking sides on the particular case
in point here. But all is never quite as it seems. And pointing out
that, on a purist basis, some are being inconsistent with the approach
that they would apply elsewhere to seeing justice done properly, in
circumstances where they think they know better, well, from here, that
seems a reasonably fair and just thing to do. And Iâd do it to their
face too.
Thatâs not treating anyone badly. As the writer of the Biblical
Wisdom Literature put it, peopleâs friends are those who tell them the
truth. Irrespective of whether or not they might get a kicking for it
If you might want to follow up on any of that, Iâm sorry that I
wonât be able to chat, but I am off to the wilds of Caledonia in a few
hours, so you, at least, can be sure of some peace and quiet
Iâll just try to avoid Cromarty
To save much angst, that was a joke.
Anna, canât you get some icons, like those on âThe Registerâ that
we can insert on posts to try to help us emote better. It could save a
lot of time and nonsense
June 23, 2013 at 01:36
- June 22, 2013 at 23:10
-
Sorry, thatâs not good enough. You resorted to name-calling and
patronising putdowns about my intelligence and did not answer a single
point.
Put all the emoticons you like in your text, itâs just a nasty set
of personal insults you tried to wriggle out of;:
âthere are some
merits in not having much sense of humourâ. Just like every bully Iâve
ever come across (âCanât you take a jokeâ). Well, to quote the song,
that joke isnât funny any more, especially when used to prop up the
useless, lazy, arse-covering, bureaucratic âeliteâ that fannies about
pretending to run the NHS, of which Ms Bower is the apogee.
-
June 23, 2013 at 00:28
-
Yeah yeah
I have a pointed pop at your ever so tasteful one liner, and since
then:
– you call me into question for the merely wish to see justice done
properly, by responding with what makes for a pretty damning
allegation âBut, hey, Ho Hum, you go ahead and defend a woman who
covered up the failings that killed a bunch of neonates and presided
over the deaths of 1200 patientsâ
– you slide out of responding to a challenge to that by conflating
that specific allegation with your earlier âhypothesisâ, which had
nothing to do with it whatsoever
– You tell me to get back to you when I have âequivalent
experienceâ (Iâll grant you that that was funny)
– You then, in spite of my pointing out what I have written about
the case in point, further state that it is then somehow clearer why I
would defend the woman
– you state that I indulge in non-sequiturs
– you venture to classify me as having a mildly hysterical tone
– you state that I seem to be fixated on witches.
– you imply that I am for the defending of corrupt practices
– you implied that I had accused you personally of being
hypocritical. I did challenge you to say that you werenât in that sort
of camp, but I never said you were
– and you got upset by thinking that in my then providing you a
fuller explanation of the point I was really making and how went about
doing so â however unpalatable some of that explanation might be as to
why you might, in the round, have failed to have grasped what I was
getting at, something I was aware of in acknowledging my being hard â
that I was then merely indulging in some sort of ad hominen attack
And after all that, do you really think that the wisest thing is to
make some sort of statement about me to the effect that âYou resorted
to name-calling and patronising putdowns about my intelligenceâ¦.. and
that what I had responded withâ¦âdid not answer a single pointââ¦..and
that overall I was the perpetrator of what was â¦.âjust a nasty set of
personal insults you tried to wriggle out ofââ¦? And then call me a
âbullyâ for good measure?
Pleaseâ¦â¦ (and there is no emoticon for that sentiment)
- June 23, 2013 at 01:00
-
Continue if you like to spout your bile.
Iâve had enough of your spiteful name-calling, ugly ad hominems and
defence of the indefensible.
Youâve be called out in your online behaviour by other commentators
here. If your insight is lacking, thatâs your problem.
-
June 23, 2013 at 01:28
-
Well, theyâll all be glad to know that, as far as this goes, Iâm
now officially off on hols, and out.
Take care, be good, and have fun
- June 23, 2013 at
00:17
-
Ho Hum,
By the way, you may address me as âMrâ Daedalus Parrot, not âMsâ.
Only those close to me in my local NHS-sponsored cross dressing circle
may call me Ms.
I admit defeat, you are so right. Your eloquent, pursuasive and
fact-rich arguments have convinced me that Cynthia Bower is an innocent
victim of unjustified stereotypical lynch mobbing. To rectify this
blatant injustice, I am sure you will be the first to start a petition
to reinstate poor Cynthia in her modest £200,000 job as excuser-in-chief
of baby killers everywhere.
Can you please forward me your email address and post code so that I
can start this noble and well-intentioned petition on your behalf?
-
June 23, 2013 at 00:43
-
Thanks for the clarification. I thought that I had read a previous
post in which you referred to yourself as being female. Itâs funny,
really, as I was merely trying to avoid inadvertently giving offence.
OK, letâs look at âYour eloquent, pursuasive and fact-rich
arguments have convinced me that Cynthia Bower is an innocent victim
of unjustified stereotypical lynch mobbing.â
So do you then accept that we should indulge in, and approve of,
âstereotypical lynch mobbingâ for all? If not, who not, and why not?
Please discuss.
But please donât make the mistake of seeing me as this womanâs
apologist in chief.
âHo Hum June 22, 2013 at 02:10
Iâve now had time to read most of
the comments. By all means shoot them IF, and only if, they are
properly âconvictedâ, but at the momentâ¦.â
Thatâs where I came into thisâ¦.
- June 21, 2013 at 22:43
-
FFS, the Barcelona Defence is universal, public sector, private sector,
anybodyâs sector.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6EaoPMANQM
Have none of you ever done a seriously real investigation that mattered?
And itâs what you can actually prove that matters. Or is every high ideal
previously espoused by contributors here as to the nature of ârealâ justice
all just piss and wind? Some sort of âThey really really do know
nothing?ââ¦.
June 21, 2013 at 22:30
-
I see that Jeremy Rhyming-Slang, eager for a headline moment, says that the
CQC cover-up crew âmay lose their pensionsâ â emphasis on the âmayâ. Remember
Sharon Shoesmith.
- June 21, 2013 at 22:32
-
More ballsâ¦â¦
June 21, 2013 at 21:13
-
Did anyone watch Jo Brand in that series âGetting onâ â it was funny in a
dark way â cos it seemed so âtrue to lifeâ
- June 21, 2013 at 21:11
-
That last comment was meant for the Commentariat in general, rather than
Anna. Just to make sure that there is no ambiguity
- June 21, 2013 at 21:09
-
Iâve only bad a quick squit at some of the derogatory effluent posted in
the comments and right now have more to do than waste my time on them one by
one.
But just remember, you are no friend of liberty or justice if that which
you dispense is limited to those that fulfill your own prejudices. Otherwise,
youâre just another hypocrite, who happens to draw your line in the sand
somewhere different
June 21, 2013 at 22:08
-
Ho Hum, be careful your red side is showing, i.e. you are spouting the
leftie manual.
- June 21, 2013 at 22:29
-
If you had read my comments on prior articles, you would know thatâs
drivelâ¦.Given your name? Risible, even.
And I canât see you as some sort of Ivan Denisovichâ¦.
Terrible, arenât I?
- June 22, 2013 at 20:55
-
Ho Hum⦠I think that if anyone is being a âTwatâ on this blog it is most
certainly youâ¦
It is fairly evident that you have issues and you are breaking all the
accepted norms of civilised blogging. Merely venting your spleen against all
and sundry here, including the host; erudite people for the most part
(myself, perhaps not included) is not good form. It is possible that, away
from this site you are a frustrated individual, seeking solace on this forum
for whatever inadequacies bedevil your normal existence by lashing out at
everyone here present who would dare to contradict you.
None of us, particularly our host deserves this kind of treatment. On
other postings I have vehemently disagreed with the thread of Annaâs
posting, but I would never, ever, go so far as to accuse her of being a
stranger to the truth, as you have done, in a most impolite and disagreeable
manner, not to mention making very impolite remarks about other contributors
that are completely undeserved.
- June 22, 2013 at 21:30
-
I love a good diagnosis
To continue in parodying form, might I presume that you also like Tribbles
.. better than you like me?
There? See how easy it really is to write something that is actually
quite funny in overall context, with all sorts of lateral allusions, but
which, if misread or misunderstood, can appear to be insulting?
Somehow I rather sadly doubt if even with the explanation, that, any
more of the rest of what I have written seems to have, will arrive at too
many places out there and be received intact, containing with the inherent
content, intent, tone and humour with which it left here.
- June 23, 2013 at
00:29
-
Frankie,
Well said.
- June 21, 2013 at 20:53
-
For someone who seems to get quite upset, and properly so, when people are
condemned by the media, and all and sundry elsewhere, before the whole facts
are investigated and proved, you do seem a tad too ready to dish out the same
sort of opprobium on those who fall into the castes that you donât seem to
like.
Maybe you could do with taking a cold shower before you put fingers to keys
sometimes? Just sayingâ¦
June 21, 2013 at 20:43
-
I think we are letting the politicians off in this. There was a huge
advantage, politically, in inventing a health watchdog in 2000 called the
Commission for Health Improvement, replacing it with the Healthcare Commission
some four years later, then replacing it with the Care Quality Commission
sometime after that. That meant that each organisation spent its time either
in looking to secure appointments in the replacement, or in inventing
processes and systems to deliver what the politicians through legislation had
dictated. With this turnover, it made sure that no-one was ever in a position
to make criticisms of the government that could not easily be refuted by
clever arguments. Add to this that as each organisation was folded into
another, shed loads of senior executives, commissioners or non-executives were
given payoffs, and you made sure that umpteen government placemen/women
received payouts/pensions at each transition. It has been a magnificent gravy
train, sadly brought to a halt by the eventual recognition by the public that
this useless arrangement has not only cost them a lot of their taxpayersâ
money, but has delivered a minimal contribution towards improving care in the
meantime. And this is only in one sector of the unbelievably complex alphabet
soup that makes up the quangos engaged in health regulation.
My contention
is that all this is entirely deliberate. Where are the politicians who set up
this dogâs breakfast? I hold no brief for Cynthia Bowers who to me is the
worst kind of public sector apparatchik, but this was a system designed to
deflect attention from the politicians of both administrations who have, with
malice aforethought, designed systems that would ensure that they received the
least possible calumny for their incompetence.
June 21, 2013 at 20:11
-
It has long been my contention that for most higher ranks in any
organisation, public or private, they are there running that organisation for
the benefit of those running the organisation. Customers, clients, call them
what you will,are just an annoying irrelevance in the grand scheme of
things.
Perhaps some of those affected will get together and sue for some
of that big pension pot.
- June 21, 2013 at 19:50
-
Cynthia Bower & Jo Brand, identical comedienes â separated at birth.
The only problem with Ms. Bowerâs brand of comedy is that it isnât funnyâ¦
- June 21, 2013 at 20:56
-
If I might possibly take the words out of her mouth, âdonât be such a
twatâ
June 21, 2013 at 19:15
-
Ah, the modern âmakes any old fool look intelligentâ spectacles! I might
buy some if I thought itâd help me get a £65,000 job/pension.
June 23, 2013 at 09:08
-
No influence on Britain.
The neo Monarch, non-Brit multi billionaire, unelected tax-dodging,
âallegedâ criminal mind rapist Rupe ?
Pull the other bell, itâs got legs on.
-
June 21, 2013 at 18:27
-
Ex-NHS carers knew from Magâs Fraud Market ongoing , unchecked.
You cantâ trust NHS Trusts.
When money rules, Care falls.
Predictable result, a national disgrace, âDonât Care Health Careâ.
- June 21, 2013 at 19:09
-
@zeroTolerance
It is certainly worth noting that the CQC doesnât DO
Healthcare, the NHS Trusts do. Presumably, if the CQC didnât exist âwe, the
peopleâ could just blame the Trusts and deal with their leaders accordingly
â if they havenât already dealt with whoever they need to deal with
first.
@Engineer
I daresay there is no âscreaming hordesâ effect about the
NHS itself, because most of us go into it, and come out fixed. A very few
see their dearest ones die in there, but I imagine we all know of someone
who did do that very thing. Hospitals are dangerous places â full of sick
people. I recall that a family friend who would be my age now, went into
hospital with one thing and died of something else, he caught in the ward.
That must have been in about 1977 or so.
None of us ever come into contact with people like Jo Brand however and
we know it will make no difference to us whether she is there or not, but
this fuss seems to designed to make us think the CQC is essential, so I
suppose it will continue.
-
June 22, 2013 at 10:50
-
Ye Olde Anglo traditional Masks, Smoke & Mirrors, CQC, NHS, GCHQ,
unending queuesâ¦
Backed by an all-Murdochized mass deception media, supporting layer
upon layer of Fraud Market faceless, overpaid, gutless, uncaring backward
Brit bureauprats.
And they have the nerve to try and trash, Murdoch-free modern Europrats
doing real Health Care.
June 22, 2013 at 14:09
-
There may well be many people to blame for the ineptitude and
downright incompetence of the NHS system, but I just cannot see how
Rupert Murdoch is one of them. He publishes papers and runs television
channels, he doesnât organise UK healthcare.
- June 22, 2013 at 14:49
-
First rule of loony troll avoidance: Donât feed the loony
troll.
- June 22, 2013 at 16:54
-
@ First rule of loony troll avoidance: Donât feed the loony troll.
@
Hmmâ¦. David Icke and Operation Yewtree comes to mindâ¦â¦â¦..
- June 22, 2013 at 20:53
-
Feed âem facts, not conspiracies.
No effect non-Brit Rupe â WTF ?!
Check unelected tax-dodging NON-Brit Rupeâs late 1970s ongoing
Right wing SUNazi/SewerOfTheWorld/SUNday.
Top Brit sellers winning 4 x Tory elections, plus Rupeâs 1997-2010
pet pawn NuLab=OldeTory.
All backing to the hilt Magâs 19Hateys anti-social war on the
Welfare State, including her Fraud Market NHS Trusts, in which we
canât trust
Nextâ¦
- June 21, 2013 at 16:53
-
Bower was a very senior figure involved in the Mid Staffs hospital scandal
before becoming the Right Hand of another very senior figure involved in the
Mid Staffs hospital scandal, David Nicholson.
Something that puzzles me â why are the screaming hordes that called for
âno rewards for failureâ after the banking crisis so silent about the
perpetrators of the NHS crisis (actually, crises)?
- June 21, 2013 at 20:40
-
To try and help your puzzlement â those put in charge of all things NHS
were lefties appointed by the last government, while bankers were supposedly
capitalists. Most people have been brainwashed to believe capitalists =
bad.
June 21, 2013 at 20:50
-
You make a very good point, however what perplexes me even more, is why
the camoron party did not have their âbonfire of the quangosâ as promised.
It would have sent a powerful message to the inept and down-right
incompetent.
The only conclusion I can come to is that camoron encourages
ineptitude to avoid the label ânastyâ.
Meanwhile, the National Death
Service flourishes.
June
21, 2013 at 14:23
-
Itâs called the National Homicide Service for good reasonâ¦
June 21, 2013 at 14:16
-
I know Iâm repeating an earlier post, but never has it seemed more
appositeâ¦
Pournelleâs Iron Law of Bureaucracy:-
In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the
organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational
bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at
NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet
Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself.
Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many
professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA
headquarters staff, etc.
In every case the second group will gain and keep control of the
organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the
organization.
Jerry Pournelle wrote it some years ago:- remarkably prescient, and our NHS
(inter alia) have adopted it as a modus operandi
June 21, 2013 at 15:45
-
It fits just as well here as it did on the other post. It is indeed an
âIron Lawâ.
June 21, 2013 at 13:50
-
One uttered the euphemism âGusset Typingâ on national television; the other
is a [email protected]?
- June 21, 2013 at 13:57
- June 21, 2013 at 13:30
-
But still, Lin Homer at the HMRC can make Cynthia Bower look positively
competent in comparison. But at least sheâs only wasting money, not lives.
Do we detect the grubby hands of Harriet Harperson in their many
appointments, accelerated promitions and proflligate rewards ?
- June 21, 2013 at 13:27
-
Any conversation with your average Brit about the national religion which
is the NHS is rather tortuous because before you can get anywhere you must
first disabuse them of the notion that the only alternative to the NHS is no
healthcare system at all, except for a few very rich individuals who currently
use Harley Street clinics. Quite frankly itâs rare to get past this initial
hurdle.
Presumable if the state currently had a monopoly on food, letâs call it the
âNFSâ then people would find it utterly impossible to accept that things like
Tescoâs, Sainsburyâs, Pizza Express, Bobâs greasy spoon and Terryâs high
street hot-dog stand (and literally thousands of other examples) could exist
at all. They would defend the NFS with a passion, I imagine something like
this:
âYes I know the food is pretty awful, and we have to wait in a queue for 2
hours a day to get our rations, but thank God for the NFS, I canât afford to
eat every day in one of those fancy Harley street restaurants, besides they
donât have the capacity, without the NFS everyone would starve, only a
heartless evil right-wing bastard could suggest any alternative to the
NFSâ
- June 21, 2013 at 21:04
-
You know, Anna could have a hash tag called #fuckthefacts. Comments like
this could then be filed appropriately. A bit like the drivel shovelled at
Nick Clegg recently for refusing to pass judgement for not knowing what
really did happen. Only politician with any real balls out there.
-
June 22, 2013 at 10:24
-
Did you want to have a stab at actually making an argument. Or are you
happy hurling around abuse and some very vague reference to an undisclosed
âfactâ. I appreciate its hard to counter my arguments so if you donât feel
up to it please continue with the the abuse, its nice to know âIâm
winningâ.
Unless of course your just winding me up, the hilarious reference to
Cleggy suggests perhaps so.
- June 22, 2013 at 14:42
-
KingBingo,
That is an excellent analogy, thnaks. I would like to make use of it
sometime, if you donât mind.
Another good comparison is when Margaret Thatcherâs government
privatised the telecomms part of the GPO (General Post Office for any
youngsters out there) in the 1980s. Before it happened, there was much
loud wailing and gnashing of teeth by many, including, I will freely
admit, my very young and naive self. In the 1980s, most of us had been
brought up on post-war socialist organisations like the NHS, the GPO,
Brititsh car makers and so on. It was all we knew. Privatisation was a
new, shocking and alien creed that no-one believed would work and many
were afraid of.
âSacrilege, you canât sell our family silver
like this!â
âHow can you let our lovely,
public-owned national treasure of a telephone system go into that nasty
profit-centred private
sector.â
etc.
These protestation were repeated despite the fact that, like the NHS,
people had no choice, had to wait ages for a crap service and there was
no choice (products were always the same shape, size and colour).
Roll forward 30 years and who now, apart from the insane and the
hair-shirt lefties (usually both), would object to a privatised national
telecomms company.
If BT hadnât been privatised, we would now probably have no mobile
phones, all landline phones would be gigantic electro-mechanical devices
permanently wired into one phone junction, with no easily unpluggable
phone connector. Oh, and only available in one tasteful shade of
grey.
-
June 22, 2013 at 14:59
-
Go and look at the stats as to how many people in other systems have
no coverage at all, the causes of personal bankruptcies etc, and then
tell me that no one other than a heartless evil bastard would suggest
alternatives to the NFS that would almost certainly result in people
landing in that position. And I donât care if you are right or left
wing.
June 21, 2013 at 13:03
-
Yes Anna I have heard that the French system knocks the socks off the
English system by chums who have retired as you have done. The NHS has become
as much if not more about Managerialism than it is about Medicine âwhat the
public donât appreciate is that scandals such as this are just the tip of the
icebergâ-possibly not in terms of failure but certainly in terms of
Managerialism becoming an important function âperhaps even the overriding
objective in the case of many employed in the NHS.
- June 21, 2013 at 12:56
-
@ Agree £11.2 million in severance pay agreements with the Treasury â¦â¦â¦..
the Nation Audit Office have now agreed that contrary to popular belief â none
of the golden handshakes actually included a âgagging clauseââ¦they were just
written in such a way that the benighted employees thought they did! @
The BBC might need the services of the NAO to grant them succour too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10128702/BBC-spent-28m-of-licence-fee-payers-money-gagging-500-staff.html
- June 21, 2013 at 20:59
-
Out of idle curiosity, have you ever approved, or signed, a compromise
agreement?
- June 21, 2013 at 21:04
-
No, I was just summarily dismissedâ¦â¦â¦..
-
June 21, 2013 at 21:10
-
@Moor â Iâve sent you the radio times article
-
June 21, 2013 at 21:16
-
Iâve done both.
Neither was fun though, even though I volunteered for one. LOL
June 21, 2013 at 12:55
-
Jo Brand is in the first picture. However, were they separated at
birth?
Anna, what a weird story â makes me glad Iâm livng in Canada.
- June 21, 2013 at 12:53
-
In passing, itâs actually slightly odd that the NHS doesnât want its
patients to be consumers, but for a long time eschewed the term âpatientsâ,
preferring âclientsâ.
I think this episode will do a lot of good. To paraphrase Mao, kick a
couple and scare thousands, and there are thousands of admindroids in the NHS
who will be looking back through their archived sent emails, and deleting some
in the hope that the NHS server hasnât kept them.
June 21,
2013 at 12:24
-
I thought both of them were John Prescott in drag!
June 21,
2013 at 11:27
-
An interesting pair of lookalikes, Anna. I share no such qualms of
mislabelling, so watch this spaceâ¦
The real question is âWhich one is the best comedienne?â
- June 21, 2013 at 11:26
-
Jo Brand is the one who takes the piss out of herself.
{ 85 comments }