Skip to main content

John O Shea on Daniel Hannan

Although John O Shea is often "inaccurate and badly informed", his post on Daniel Hannnan and the NHS is worth a link.

In particular he highlights a Guardian Article about the NHS.

The practise of people not having to worry when they are ill is something that has to be protected.

There are problems with the obssession with targets which result in a system where often management priorities result in patients not being treated that well. However, they do not have to worry that for example the medicare budget is getting depleted or they don't have insurance.

I met up with the Yardley Carers group this week and they did explain how difficult it is particularly caring for someone in the last days of life and that the system often creates additional trauma by pressurising them inappropriately. For example one person had her husband discharged to a hospice. After two weeks they said because he hadn't died he had to go somewhere else. This really should not be necessary and we should look more carefully at these issues.

However, underlying this the question as to whether funds were available for medical care was not an issue - although that of social care was.

I wonder sometimes whether our assessment/service model devised by the treasury is the best bet. It strikes me sometimes that the provision of a resource to a group whereby the allocation of the resource (eg respite care) is split between the group in some less formal manner would result in a better situation.

There does need to be some form of budgetary control. That is very difficult to handle sensitively in the treasury model. However, whichever approach is used we are better off having the universal health care model than the USA model.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…