UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
968 said:
brenflys777 said:
If you read the link you'd have noticed it ended up as an Angus Deaton film. I haven't seen any BBC output that has stated clearly that it was funded or part funded by the EU. In light of the BBC obligation to impartiality to guarantee its funding from the UK taxpayer I think it should.
So if it did make that declaration at the beginning, you'd be happy?Relevant to this thread, UKIP had some hostile press coverage from the BBC. It also got plenty of airtime. I think it is important that the referendum - if delivered - is fair and honest. If the UK public broadcaster receives money to make a pro EU film one day, I think it loses credibility performing a news analysis or interview relevant to the EU the next.
Your position that in the NHS any COI must be declared, doesn't match your argument that the funding from the EU to the BBC is so low that suspicion of influence is paranoid. Either money can buy influence or not.
brenflys777 said:
Personally I'm not happy that the BBC receives funding from outside sources to make TV shows when we are required to pay towards it if we want to watch live TV. I'm happy for them to get paid for successful shows that they sell if it reduces the burden on the taxpayer, however I think all sponsored output needs to be clearly labelled. If it has any link to the EU or the referendum I think it should be on there throughout the programme.
Relevant to this thread, UKIP had some hostile press coverage from the BBC. It also got plenty of airtime. I think it is important that the referendum - if delivered - is fair and honest. If the UK public broadcaster receives money to make a pro EU film one day, I think it loses credibility performing a news analysis or interview relevant to the EU the next.
Your position that in the NHS any COI must be declared, doesn't match your argument that the funding from the EU to the BBC is so low that suspicion of influence is paranoid. Either money can buy influence or not.
And I'm saying that funding for programmes by the EU are revealed by the funding declarations for TV/film programmes. Your concerns about the funding of the BBC is the subject of another thread. However, the BBC gave Farage plenty of airtime and still gives UKIP airtime to make it's views clear. UKIP revealed hostile coverage from many news organisations, not just the BBC, but unlike the other organisations, UKIP didn't get a chance to make their position clear. I disagree that receiving a tiny amount of money to fund an inconsequential program makes a significant difference in the airtime given to the pro/anti EU campaign, no more than a pen with a drug name on it changes my opinion of what drugs I prescribe, however, I'm happy to declare my COIs as I'm sure the BBC would be, and perhaps do when they list sources of funding for it's programming.Relevant to this thread, UKIP had some hostile press coverage from the BBC. It also got plenty of airtime. I think it is important that the referendum - if delivered - is fair and honest. If the UK public broadcaster receives money to make a pro EU film one day, I think it loses credibility performing a news analysis or interview relevant to the EU the next.
Your position that in the NHS any COI must be declared, doesn't match your argument that the funding from the EU to the BBC is so low that suspicion of influence is paranoid. Either money can buy influence or not.
968 said:
You are utterly bizarre. Did you not read what I wrote, or are you unable to comprehend that I don't know what standards pharmacists are accountable too, specifically, because surprisingly, as a medic, I'm not a pharmacist. I could make a guess, but haven't actually read what they are. However, I'm fairly certain they are required to declare their conflicts of interest.
Please continue the personal attacks though, they do you no end of credit. Are you going to continue to attack my working patterns, or is there another strategy you'll try to attack me with to garner support?
The only thing bizarre is a NHS "consultant" constantly posting on pistonheads. About the NHS.Please continue the personal attacks though, they do you no end of credit. Are you going to continue to attack my working patterns, or is there another strategy you'll try to attack me with to garner support?
If you know what I mean.
You've had a good run I'll give you that....
Mojocvh said:
The only thing bizarre is a NHS "consultant" constantly posting on pistonheads. About the NHS.
If you know what I mean.
You've had a good run I'll give you that....
Have you been reading the thread? Let me recap for you. Brenflys equated the funding of the BBC with drug companies paying NHS consultants to influence their prescribing decisions, though the article relates to pharmacists and managers because consultants and GPs are required to declare all COIs. Hence the discussion. Am I allowed to discuss such an issue, since I have some insight into it, or do I need to seek your permission? Might I ask why you put the word consultant in speech marks? Are you disputing my occupation? You've already made some snide remark about my working patterns, and if it pleases you, I can tell you precisely what I do each week, since I keep a job planning diary. If you know what I mean.
You've had a good run I'll give you that....
968 said:
Mojocvh said:
The only thing bizarre is a NHS "consultant" constantly posting on pistonheads. About the NHS.
If you know what I mean.
You've had a good run I'll give you that....
Have you been reading the thread? Let me recap for you. Brenflys equated the funding of the BBC with drug companies paying NHS consultants to influence their prescribing decisions, though the article relates to pharmacists and managers because consultants and GPs are required to declare all COIs. Hence the discussion. Am I allowed to discuss such an issue, since I have some insight into it, or do I need to seek your permission? Might I ask why you put the word consultant in speech marks? Are you disputing my occupation? You've already made some snide remark about my working patterns, and if it pleases you, I can tell you precisely what I do each week, since I keep a job planning diary. If you know what I mean.
You've had a good run I'll give you that....
UKIP-The Future- Volume 4.
Not 986 the "consultant".
Not 986 the "consultant" who is saving the NHS.
Not 986 the "consultant" showing how evil the UKIP is, through Volumes 1,2,3 & 4.
That thread.
Mojocvh said:
Ah, the thread.
UKIP-The Future- Volume 4.
Not 986 the "consultant".
Not 986 the "consultant" who is saving the NHS.
Not 986 the "consultant" showing how evil the UKIP is, through Volumes 1,2,3 & 4.
That thread.
Not sure who 986 is, but I'm 968 maybe you're confused. Your posts seem to be becoming more and more incoherent. Please infer more nonsense though and make further personal attacks, nothing like personal attacks when you've got no argument. Are you going to explain why you keep putting the word consultant into speech marks? Or are you going to continue bUKIP-The Future- Volume 4.
Not 986 the "consultant".
Not 986 the "consultant" who is saving the NHS.
Not 986 the "consultant" showing how evil the UKIP is, through Volumes 1,2,3 & 4.
That thread.
hing incoherently?968 said:
Mojocvh said:
Ah, the thread.
UKIP-The Future- Volume 4.
Not 986 the "consultant".
Not 986 the "consultant" who is saving the NHS.
Not 986 the "consultant" showing how evil the UKIP is, through Volumes 1,2,3 & 4.
That thread.
Not sure who 986 is, but I'm 968 maybe you're confused. Your posts seem to be becoming more and more incoherent. Please infer more nonsense though and make further personal attacks, nothing like personal attacks when you've got no argument. Are you going to explain why you keep putting the word consultant into speech marks? Or are you going to continue bUKIP-The Future- Volume 4.
Not 986 the "consultant".
Not 986 the "consultant" who is saving the NHS.
Not 986 the "consultant" showing how evil the UKIP is, through Volumes 1,2,3 & 4.
That thread.
hing incoherently?What is important, however, you provide nothing to support your position, nothing at all.
Apologies to all those whom I may have confused with my 968/986 mistype.
Mojocvh said:
986 or 968? It matters not a jot: you are [easily] identifiable either way.
What is important, however, you provide nothing to support your position, nothing at all.
Apologies to all those whom I may have confused with my 968/986 mistype.
And what position am I supposed to be supporting and what is it you require me to provide. All I read is more incoherent bWhat is important, however, you provide nothing to support your position, nothing at all.
Apologies to all those whom I may have confused with my 968/986 mistype.
hing. Please clarify what is bothering you and perhaps I can answer?Mojocvh said:
Edited to add, it'll be interesting to see if the mods take any action over your abusive post.
Edited by 968 on Monday 31st August 23:07
Edited by Bill on Tuesday 1st September 07:46
Oh my job planning diary is very helpful because it demonstrates to the trust at my appraisal and job planning meetings what additional activity I provide the NHS for no pay which equates to an average of 12 extra hours a week reporting scans, and carrying out diabetic screening work. If you need more details feel free to ask.
Mojocvh said:
Thank you for supporting my point of view. Really.
PS Who cares what you say???
Clearly you do because you've spent much of this evening posting nonsense to try and personally attack me. Pretty pathetic indeed. Try and stay on subject and stick to the issues. You have embarrassed yourself enough this evening already.PS Who cares what you say???
Mojocvh said:
What. NHS. Consultant. Would. Be. Here. Doing. What. You. Do.>>>"Because I'm conversing with a barely conversant person who's seemingly had too much to drink
Why wouldn't an NHS consultant be able to post on a public forum? Am I not allowed to? Edited by Mojocvh on Monday 31st August 23:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff