Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[turbobloke]

968 said:

turbobloke said:

Staying on-topic and not having seen this before though others may have - it's dated November 2015 - and given the primary source is doctors themselves on Facebook (as opposed to the DM which is after all PH's favourite newspaper) there are some interesting comments from the doctors themselves about the dispute and strike action, including:

- making up lost pay with crem forms aka 'ash cash' which goes down well on FB
- an admission that offering emergency care initially is purely tactical
- acknowledgement that keeping public support will be a PR nightmare (see above)
- admission that claims the new contract means pay cuts of 40% are exaggerated
- as another doctor says ‘please please stop quoting the 30-40% figure...we have no idea'
- "if we waver, I promise you, we’re toast"

Interesting stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308808/Ju...

Ah yes the Mail the last bastion for those with no argument. This is patently rubbish and pathetically poor journalism, bit like the Moet Medics story.

That sure touched a nerve. Also, as I predicted and did what I could to prevent, you made the schoolboy error of confusing your secondary source with the primary source. It was doctors writing that stuff I quoted, not Mail staff.

Not long ago, I posted something that BMA negotiators had said about their incredulity at the Labour Party's useless negotiating skills, which ended up with new GP contracts that contributed to NHS deficits and you just tried to trash the relevant comments then along similar lines as now, failing equally badly as you took insufficient notice of the primary source, which was the BMA.

On Friday I said:

It is difficult, and doctors will put patients at risk if they don't get their way. Obviously it won't be easy but we can hope. At some point those charged with governance will govern if they are at all competent. This may be a surprise but it's what should happen. It may not have happened with Labour when they rolled over and let GPs tickle their tummy with fat contracts for less work...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6314301.stm

...BMA negotiators were reported as being "stunned" at Labour's largesse and couldn't believe it at first, but this government rightly takes a view that includes the nation's financial predicament and the position of taxpayers.

To which you replied, also on Friday:

968 said:

Utter bks. Spouted directly from the anus of Jeremy Hunt himself.

If you really can't tell the difference between Hunt's anus and the BMA's anus you may need your eyes testing.

In this latest instance the material you describe as rubbish - and I agree but for different reasons - was written by doctors, not the Mail, so shooting the messenger here is as pointless as it always was. You got the diagnosis wrong, again.

It obviously touched a nerve...you need to have a word with those pesky Junior Doctors. Try telling them not to post so much truth on FB for starters otherwise people might mistake them for militant lefties rather than educated professionals who ought to behave, including on social media, in ways that command public respect.

[968]

turbobloke said:

If you really can't tell the difference between Hunt's anus and the BMA's anus you may need your eyes testing.

In this latest instance the material you describe as rubbish - and I agree but for different reasons - was written by doctors, not the Mail, so shooting the messenger here is as pointless as it always was. You got the diagnosis wrong, again.

It obviously touched a nerve...you need to have a word with those pesky Junior Doctors. Try telling them not to post so much truth on FB for starters otherwise people might mistake them for militant lefties rather than educated professionals who ought to behave, including on social media, in ways that command public respect.

Oh so you've got access to that Facebook chat room and have seen precisely what was said have you? I don't think you have and your are taking verbatim what a highly biased newspaper has quoted, with a history of deliberately misquoting as they did with the Moet medics story, so this is utter bks much like most of what you post.

[turbobloke]

968 said:

turbobloke said:

If you really can't tell the difference between Hunt's anus and the BMA's anus you may need your eyes testing.

In this latest instance the material you describe as rubbish - and I agree but for different reasons - was written by doctors, not the Mail, so shooting the messenger here is as pointless as it always was. You got the diagnosis wrong, again.

It obviously touched a nerve...you need to have a word with those pesky Junior Doctors. Try telling them not to post so much truth on FB for starters otherwise people might mistake them for militant lefties rather than educated professionals who ought to behave, including on social media, in ways that command public respect.

Oh so you've got access to that Facebook chat room and have seen precisely what was said have you? I don't think you have and your are taking verbatim what a highly biased newspaper has quoted, with a history of deliberately misquoting as they did with the Moet medics story, so this is utter bks much like most of what you post.

Sure, it's all made up now do keep on wiggling on that stick, it's as edifying as the ash cash comment. Pure gold.

"Last night, Dr Mehdian stood by her comments on Facebook, saying..."

"The Mail on Sunday asked the BMA if Dr Collins wanted to comment but he declined."

If it was fantasy there would be hell to pay. You know it's all genuine, so do the rest of us. De Mehdian does too.

Dream on and keep wiggling, or should that be spinning...

[IanA2]

Ah yes, Moet Medics:


http://www.buzzfeed.com/laurasilver/this-moet-medi...





Always preferred Gosset myself....

[turbobloke]

IanA2 said:

Ah yes, Moet Medics:

Personally I'm not in favour of any focus on one individual, but as you mentioned it, the Moet Medic comment was more about these pics than the one you followed up with.





The pic of the female medic has this plainly worded caption, nothing about high-living, just about her home, true Daily Mail stuff which will make 968 a bit happier and maybe less angry:

Petra Hanson, 28, of University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire Trust, has a £490,000 home and posted a pic of her and an elephant.

There's nothing wrong in my view when qualified, hard working well-paid individuals enjoy the fruits of their labours. It's petty and pointless to go personal, as several of the vested interests in this thread have found out.

As you were

[IanA2]

turbobloke said:

IanA2 said:

Ah yes, Moet Medics:

Personally I'm not in favour of any focus on one individual, but as you mentioned it, the Moet Medic comment was more about these pics than the one you followed up with.





The pic of the female medic has this plainly worded caption, nothing about high-living, just about her home, true Daily Mail stuff which will make 968 a bit happier and maybe less angry:

Petra Hanson, 28, of University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire Trust, has a £490,000 home and posted a pic of her and an elephant.

There's nothing wrong in my view when qualified, hard working well-paid individuals enjoy the fruits of their labours. It's petty and pointless to go personal, as several of the vested interests in this thread have found out.

As you were

The guy sitting on the beach: He was studying/working in Australia and whilst living in the family home of his supervisor he volunteered many hours of baby sitting. In thanks, just before he came home, his supervisor bought him a helicopter ride. Moet? Noet!

The other guy's sitting at home drinking what looks to me like some supermarket prosecco. That's a story?????

ETA: 490K house or not, she didn't get that on a junior's pay

[turbobloke]

IanA2 said:

turbobloke said:

IanA2 said:

Ah yes, Moet Medics:

Personally I'm not in favour of any focus on one individual, but as you mentioned it, the Moet Medic comment was more about these pics than the one you followed up with.





The pic of the female medic has this plainly worded caption, nothing about high-living, just about her home, true Daily Mail stuff which will make 968 a bit happier and maybe less angry:

Petra Hanson, 28, of University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire Trust, has a £490,000 home and posted a pic of her and an elephant.

There's nothing wrong in my view when qualified, hard working well-paid individuals enjoy the fruits of their labours. It's petty and pointless to go personal, as several of the vested interests in this thread have found out.

As you were

The guy sitting on the beach: He was studying/working in Australia and whilst living in the family home of his supervisor he volunteered many hours of baby sitting. In thanks, just before he came home, his supervisor bought him a helicopter ride. Moet? Noet!

The other guy's sitting at home drinking what looks to me like some supermarket prosecco. That's a story?????

Who said it was??? It's nothing to me as per my comment above, in which I express a preference to avoid such a focus. That said, as you chose to dignify it (Sun article) with a response, the least you could have done was to post the actual pics in the non-story that were related to Moet, also what the caption to the elephant pic actually said.

Who knows - when commenting on the non-story, which might just have been a story to you to be worthy of comment, the lack of precision in your response to the non-story might otherwise have been just a tad misleading to some.

Personally, I'd rather get back to those totally genuine Junior Doctor comments on FB, now that's a story.

[IanA2]

turbobloke said:

IanA2 said:

turbobloke said:

IanA2 said:

Ah yes, Moet Medics:

Personally I'm not in favour of any focus on one individual, but as you mentioned it, the Moet Medic comment was more about these pics than the one you followed up with.





The pic of the female medic has this plainly worded caption, nothing about high-living, just about her home, true Daily Mail stuff which will make 968 a bit happier and maybe less angry:

Petra Hanson, 28, of University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire Trust, has a £490,000 home and posted a pic of her and an elephant.

There's nothing wrong in my view when qualified, hard working well-paid individuals enjoy the fruits of their labours. It's petty and pointless to go personal, as several of the vested interests in this thread have found out.

As you were

The guy sitting on the beach: He was studying/working in Australia and whilst living in the family home of his supervisor he volunteered many hours of baby sitting. In thanks, just before he came home, his supervisor bought him a helicopter ride. Moet? Noet!

The other guy's sitting at home drinking what looks to me like some supermarket prosecco. That's a story?????

Who said it was??? It's nothing to me as per my comment above, in which I express a preference to avoid such a focus. That said, as you chose to dignify it with a response, the least you could have done was to post the actual pics in the non-story that were related to Moet, also what the caption to the elephant pic actually said.

Who knows - when commenting on the non-story, which might just have been a story to be worthy of comment, the lack of precision in your response to the non-story might otherwise have been just a tad misleading to some.

Personally, I'd rather get back to those totally genuine Junior Doctor comments on FB, now that's a story.

Forgive me if I ignore you in future. Fact is you're a fkwit.

[968]

turbobloke said:

Sure, it's all made up now do keep on wiggling on that stick, it's as edifying as the ash cash comment. Pure gold.

"Last night, Dr Mehdian stood by her comments on Facebook, saying..."

"The Mail on Sunday asked the BMA if Dr Collins wanted to comment but he declined."

If it was fantasy there would be hell to pay. You know it's all genuine, so do the rest of us. De Mehdian does too.

Dream on and keep wiggling, or should that be spinning...

No it's utter nonsense and your desperation to demonstrate it as such is testimony to how pathetically low people like you and Hunt with his media cronies will swoop to try and pour discredit upon anyone who questions the imposition of this entirely unfair contract. The argument has been lost by Hunt, so much so that the Times reports he will lose his job ins reshuffle and Boris will become SoS.

As I've already stated on this thread objective evidence of the trainees in my deanery suggests nearly ALL of them will lose pay as a result of this change, rather contradicting the anecdotal rubbish posted in the mail. With regards to crem form fees, how do you think those would apply to the majority of trainees who aren't in receipt of a significant amount because they are in specialities with low mortality rates?

[turbobloke]

968 said:

turbobloke said:

Sure, it's all made up now do keep on wiggling on that stick, it's as edifying as the ash cash comment. Pure gold.

"Last night, Dr Mehdian stood by her comments on Facebook, saying..."

"The Mail on Sunday asked the BMA if Dr Collins wanted to comment but he declined."

If it was fantasy there would be hell to pay. You know it's all genuine, so do the rest of us. De Mehdian does too.

Dream on and keep wiggling, or should that be spinning...

No it's utter nonsense and your desperation to demonstrate it as such is testimony to how pathetically low people like you and Hunt . . .

Whoa, I'm not with Hunt. You were advised of this when you last resorted to unoriginal and unnecessary abuse in (iirc) calling me Hunt's bum chum.

You should refer your remarks to Dr Mehdian who has confirmed the reality of it all, as has the BMA with the revelations getting nfa.

[968]

turbobloke said:

Whoa, I'm not with Hunt. You were advised of this when you last resorted to unoriginal and unnecessary abuse in (iirc) calling me Hunt's bum chum.

You should refer your remarks to Dr Mehdian who has confirmed the reality of it all, as has the BMA with the revelations getting nfa.

You are precisely with Hunt. You quote the same mendacious rhetoric as he does try try to garnish your non-argument.

With regards to Dr Mehdian, what did he say that you're so delighted about? That he had no idea if they'd lose 40% of pay? After you've finished jerking off into your Sunday lunch you might reflect on the facts stated previously that the calculations were so complex at the outset, no one was absolutely sure of the level of pay cut for each individual. This is why hospital trusts and deaneries have done objective analysis of this which shows they'll ALL receive a pay cut (in my deanery).

So hardly a revelation then. I'm sure you're feverishly googling right now to dig up some more dirt to maintain your tumesence. None of the other quotes are anything more than no st Sherlock quotes ie striking is a PR disaster, no one wanted strikes which is why we Drs haven't had a strike in more than 40 years despite suffering appalling working conditions over that time.

[Lucas CAV]

Turbobloke.... Do you have an opinion on the thread / question of junior doctors' contract?

[turbobloke]

968 said:

turbobloke said:

Whoa, I'm not with Hunt. You were advised of this when you last resorted to unoriginal and unnecessary abuse in (iirc) calling me Hunt's bum chum.

You should refer your remarks to Dr Mehdian who has confirmed the reality of it all, as has the BMA with the revelations getting nfa.

You are precisely with Hunt.

You are precisely wrong, a position you occupy too readily for the sake of unsuccessful attempts at point scoring.

Lucas CAV said:

Turbobloke.... Do you have an opinion on the thread / question of junior doctors' contract?

I've yet to see a credible non-partisan description of it. I already indicated earlier in the thread that both sides will be spinning until they're dizzy. As only the negotiators know what contract is currently on offer, I suspect that means few people know what the details are.

As also repeated once or twice, I'm not in support of a cut in Junior Doctors' pay in terms of like-for-like work, if you get my drift. Nor am I in favour of a generous settlement given the general position of many workers losing their less well-paid jobs in recent years and the wider economic position.

I'm also not particularly taken by the overt politicisation from the BMA side, activist JDs pretending that the NHS is unsafe in Tory hands or needs saving (that's wrong, and it's whales that need saving surely), and if Hunt has been scaremongering on stroke patient care then I think that's unwise and wrong.

HTH.

[turbobloke]

PS
Nor do I see any merit in making a big deal out of relatively young, qualified, hard working and well-paid individuals enjoying the fruits of their labours as they see fit. As with the other comments this has already been stated on the thread.

[Rich_W]

turbobloke said:

I've yet to see a credible non-partisan description of it. I already indicated earlier in the thread that both sides will be spinning until they're dizzy. As only the negotiators know what contract is currently on offer, I suspect that means few people know what the details are.

As also repeated once or twice, I'm not in support of a cut in Junior Doctors' pay in terms of like-for-like work, if you get my drift. Nor am I in favour of a generous settlement given the general position of many workers losing their less well-paid jobs in recent years and the wider economic position.

I'm also not particularly taken by the overt politicisation from the BMA side, activist JDs pretending that the NHS is unsafe in Tory hands or needs saving (that's wrong, and it's whales that need saving surely), and if Hunt has been scaremongering on stroke patient care then I think that's unwise and wrong.

HTH.

This is where I'm at.

I've recently been through the NHS from A&E to Surgery (On a Sunday morning no less) to 8 weeks of Post Surgery Physio appointments to Discharge. The staff I met (St Georges) were all great. So won't kick them.

But the whole JD situation is not exactly clear on the details.

Less hours worked seems sensible.
7 day NHS seems sensible. (Though it seems a fair few departments are already 24/7 )

So why are the BMA saying this will affect patient safety?

I want an IMPARTIAL bulletpoint list please. What BMA want. What the Politicians/whoever want

[968]

Rich_W said:

This is where I'm at.

I've recently been through the NHS from A&E to Surgery (On a Sunday morning no less) to 8 weeks of Post Surgery Physio appointments to Discharge. The staff I met (St Georges) were all great. So won't kick them.

But the whole JD situation is not exactly clear on the details.

Less hours worked seems sensible.
7 day NHS seems sensible. (Though it seems a fair few departments are already 24/7 )

So why are the BMA saying this will affect patient safety?

I want an IMPARTIAL bulletpoint list please. What BMA want. What the Politicians/whoever want

In answer to your questions, there will not be less hours worked but more. The reason is that the government are removing penalties from hospitals who breach working hours for JDs. This means they will simply exploit the juniors because they can. If you don't think this is the case, I've personal experience of precisely this when I was a junior doctor. The only negative consequence for hospital trusts exploiting their juniors will be a negative CQC report, which most of them have anyway. This will directly affect patient safety as they will be treated by overworked and overtired doctors.

Even if they do not exploit them, which they will this is all about reducing the wage bill for most of them by re-drawing what constitutes a normal working day. They want to redefine this as 7-10pm Monday to Saturday. This means any overtime can only be claimed outside of these hours, which is patently absurd and contrary to most of the bull st merchants here, very few people work those hours as a normal day and less at a lower hourly rate lower than the JDs do.

The 7 day NHS is a huge smokescreen. A 7 day emergency service already exists everywhere. The mortality statistics often quoted by Hunt are highly misleading and do not state that there is a definite weekend effect. Indeed many of these papers have defined the weekend as Friday to Monday. Some have shown higher mortality in a Wednesday. It is a extremely complex issue. However, Hunt isn't the slightest bit bothered about this. He is focused on forcing doctors to carry out ROUTINE work on weekends ie non urgent surgery and out patient appointments, which will in no way affect the mortality of emergency patients.

The only way this could change is if ALL staff members were working 7 days a week at maximum staffing levels. This will not happen as it will cost an additional £25billion a year and actually the demand isn't there for that. What is required is an increase in staffing levels of doctors and nurses particularly in primary care, A&E and certain acute specialities, which again won't happen as it'll cost money.

The BMA oppose these changes in the juniors contract. Note I'm a senior doctor so this doesn't affect me. However, I recognise how reckless these changes will be to patient safety. The BMA does not want any more money the government simply wants to reduce the pay and force the juniors to work longer hours for at best the same money, but in my trust it will result in a huge pay cut for all our core medical/surgical trainees.

Edited by 968 on Sunday 17th January 18:40

Edited by 968 on Sunday 17th January 18:42

[turbobloke]

Key word: impartial.

Next.

[barryrs]

Seems the BMA and government aren't all that far apart after all

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

15 out of 16 issues agreed and the last sticking point being weekend pay, not that the recent strike was about pay of course.

[IanA2]

968 said:

Rich_W said:

This is where I'm at.

I've recently been through the NHS from A&E to Surgery (On a Sunday morning no less) to 8 weeks of Post Surgery Physio appointments to Discharge. The staff I met (St Georges) were all great. So won't kick them.

But the whole JD situation is not exactly clear on the details.

Less hours worked seems sensible.
7 day NHS seems sensible. (Though it seems a fair few departments are already 24/7 )

So why are the BMA saying this will affect patient safety?

I want an IMPARTIAL bulletpoint list please. What BMA want. What the Politicians/whoever want

In answer to your questions, there will not be less hours worked but more. The reason is that the government are removing penalties from hospitals who breach working hours for JDs. This means they will simply exploit the juniors because they can. If you don't think this is the case, I've personal experience of precisely this when I was a junior doctor. The only negative consequence for hospital trusts exploiting their juniors will be a negative CQC report, which most of them have anyway. This will directly affect patient safety as they will be treated by overworked and overtired doctors.

Even if they do not exploit them, which they will this is all about reducing the wage bill for most of them by re-drawing what constitutes a normal working day. They want to redefine this as 7-10pm Monday to Saturday. This means any overtime can only be claimed outside of these hours, which is patently absurd and contrary to most of the bull st merchants here, very few people work those hours as a normal day and less at a lower hourly rate lower than the JDs do.

The 7 day NHS is a huge smokescreen. A 7 day emergency service already exists everywhere. The mortality statistics often quoted by Hunt are highly misleading and do not state that there is a definite weekend effect. Indeed many of these papers have defined the weekend as Friday to Monday. Some have shown higher mortality in a Wednesday. It is a extremely complex issue. However, Hunt isn't the slightest bit bothered about this. He is focused on forcing doctors to carry out ROUTINE work on weekends ie non urgent surgery and out patient appointments, which will in no way affect the mortality of emergency patients.

The only way this could change is if ALL staff members were working 7 days a week at maximum staffing levels. This will not happen as it will cost an additional £25billion a year and actually the demand isn't there for that. What is required is an increase in staffing levels of doctors and nurses particularly in primary care, A&E and certain acute specialities, which again won't happen as it'll cost money.

The BMA oppose these changes in the juniors contract. Note I'm a senior doctor so this doesn't affect me. However, I recognise how reckless these changes will be to patient safety. The BMA does not want any more money the government simply wants to reduce the pay and force the juniors to work longer hours for at best the same money, but in my trust it will result in a huge pay cut for all our core medical/surgical trainees.

Edited by 968 on Sunday 17th January 18:40

Edited by 968 on Sunday 17th January 18:42

@968 Agree with all you've said, although I think the figure of £25B is probably a bit on the low side.

[Strocky]

It seems aspiration and jealousy aren't mutually exclusive