Stop Violence on NHS Staff: Sign the petition Now

[AMG Merc]

shed driver said:

There's no one size fits all answer. Maybe report every single incident, push for prosecution in every case and let the CPS decide? Kick out every patient that calls me names or lashes out? Or just accept that this happens, but whatever it is, maybe a few exemplary sentences may deter some.

SD.

Well put, can't hurt, can it.

[kowalski655]

Astacus said:

fblm said:

I don't understand. You get assaulted. You call the police. They don't turn up? Refuse to arrest? CPS refuse to prosecute?

More likely is: you get assaulted, you report it to your manager, your manager thinks its just one of those things...

Or You get assaulted, you report it to your manager, your manager "doesn't want to get involved"

What right does a manager have to stop someone calling 999?

I can get that someone drunk, mentally ill & so on can go off on one,the same way they could at Tesco, but someone merely pissed off at waiting too long, why on earth would they want to attack someone who can reduce their pain meds, use a VERY big needle when a small one would do, or order a no-lube rectal exam "just in case"?
Can the medics who have posted on this thread say whether they have exacted their revenge like this?(Hypothetically of course )

[jjlynn27]

Astacus said:

jjlynn27 said:

I doubt that anyone is actually surprised by anything anymore on NP&E. If the new law is passed and if it makes the staff that has to deal with scum on a daily basis feel better and more appreciated, what is the downside?

At any rate, thanks to normal people the threshold was reached, so thanks to op for posting the link.

Well, I think the downside is the utter waste of parliamentary time that could be taken up passing new laws that actually have some use, for a start

You think that's 'utter waste' to try to provide additional protection to people who deal with morons on daily basis, who think that it's ok to abuse people, for whatever reason?

Even if it gets few idiots to think twice before lashing out / attacking someone, it's time very well spent.

[Amateurish]

As is so often the case, new legislation is not required. What is required is to make use of existing laws. Assaults on medical staff should be prosecuted as a matter of course. As referenced above, sentencing guidelines provide that it is an aggravating factor where the victim is NHS Staff. Petition not signed.

[jjlynn27]

Already passed 100k so signing or not signing now has zero effect. It's always funny to see numpties adding 'Petition not signed' like anyone gives a.

[Amateurish]

jjlynn27 said:

Signed.

And yet...

[Halb]

Are most of these attacks drunken scum in A&E at night, rather than patients with mental health issues?

A story in the local rag, from a few years ago has always stuck with me, how a hardcore group os around 100 abusers sucked millions out of the NHS local board, by constantly drinking and ending up in A&E on a weekly basis. Usually accompanied by the police.

[anonymous-user]

kowalski655 said:

Astacus said:

fblm said:

I don't understand. You get assaulted. You call the police. They don't turn up? Refuse to arrest? CPS refuse to prosecute?

More likely is: you get assaulted, you report it to your manager, your manager thinks its just one of those things...

Or You get assaulted, you report it to your manager, your manager "doesn't want to get involved"

What right does a manager have to stop someone calling 999?

I can get that someone drunk, mentally ill & so on can go off on one,the same way they could at Tesco, but someone merely pissed off at waiting too long, why on earth would they want to attack someone who can reduce their pain meds, use a VERY big needle when a small one would do, or order a no-lube rectal exam "just in case"?
Can the medics who have posted on this thread say whether they have exacted their revenge like this?(Hypothetically of course )

Medi-types - do NOT admit to this. The PH armchair expert smart-arse sleuths will then try and find who you are, where you work, and report you to your boss. Wouldn't be the first time.

[kowalski655]

Really? That would make the PH amatuer Sherlocks as bad as the pissed up assaulters! So please ignore my question


Nice to think they could though

[13m]

rxe said:

The bigger problem is the people who the NHS interacts with are probably more likely to commit assault. Injured drunk people, people with mental health issues, people with medical conditions that alter their outlook on life.

Yes, the NHS comes into contact with more of society's deranged than anyone else. But are the aformentioned nutters going to stop and think, "Ah, due to new legislation my penalty for striking this medic will be greater than it was formerly. I will therefore regain my composure and not commit assault."?

There is another factor which I haven't yet seen mentioned. Many NHS staff, in my experience, would be right at the top of the list of people I'd assault if I were that sort of person. The medical profession in general and some of the staff that work in the NHS are arrogant beyond belief and just plain rude. Engaging with these people when a loved one, mother, father, child, wife, is not being taken care of adequately, to then receive a high-handed or unhelpful response, really does stimulate the desire to take direct action. I know, I've been there several times.

So, in my view (for what that is worth), there is no need for a new law, because:

1. There is a section of society that will not be deterred by it.

2. Assault is assault and all assaults should be considered equal.

3. Some of the assaulted would not have been assaulted had they, themselves, not created a situation where it became likely.

On that basis I won't be signing.

[AMG Merc]

jjlynn27 said:

Already passed 100k so signing or not signing now has zero effect. It's always funny to see numpties adding 'Petition not signed' like anyone gives a.

Exactly and yet they find the time to post here instead.

[13m]

AMG Merc said:

jjlynn27 said:

Already passed 100k so signing or not signing now has zero effect. It's always funny to see numpties adding 'Petition not signed' like anyone gives a.

Exactly and yet they find the time to post here instead.

In point of fact it doesn't have zero effect. The weight of the response is often considered a barometer of public opinion.

I think some people post here to explain that not everyone shares your point of view. You two seem to think that if dissenters were not doing that they'd be signing the petition.

Your above comments suggest that you might be the numpties here, not those who haven't signed.

[jjlynn27]

13m said:

In point of fact it doesn't have zero effect. The weight of the response is often considered a barometer of public opinion.

I think some people post here to explain that not everyone shares your point of view. You two seem to think that if dissenters were not doing that they'd be signing the petition.

Your above comments suggest that you might be the numpties here, not those who haven't signed.

You are missing the point, unsurprisingly. Try to read what I wrote. People can sign or not, no issues with that at all. To end your post with 'not signing', after petition already reached threshold is being a numpty. Do you understand the difference between the two?

[13m]

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

In point of fact it doesn't have zero effect. The weight of the response is often considered a barometer of public opinion.

I think some people post here to explain that not everyone shares your point of view. You two seem to think that if dissenters were not doing that they'd be signing the petition.

Your above comments suggest that you might be the numpties here, not those who haven't signed.

You are missing the point, unsurprisingly. Try to read what I wrote. People can sign or not, no issues with that at all. To end your post with 'not signing', after petition already reached threshold is being a numpty. Do you understand the difference between the two?

I think it's you who is missing the point. The total number of signatures is relevant even if the threshold for referral is met.

[jjlynn27]

13m said:

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

In point of fact it doesn't have zero effect. The weight of the response is often considered a barometer of public opinion.

I think some people post here to explain that not everyone shares your point of view. You two seem to think that if dissenters were not doing that they'd be signing the petition.

Your above comments suggest that you might be the numpties here, not those who haven't signed.

You are missing the point, unsurprisingly. Try to read what I wrote. People can sign or not, no issues with that at all. To end your post with 'not signing', after petition already reached threshold is being a numpty. Do you understand the difference between the two?

I think it's you who is missing the point. The total number of signatures is relevant even if the threshold for referral is met.

Let's try again slowly. Once petition hits 100k it will be debated in Parliament. So far so good? There are over 110k signatures on the petition already. This thread is read by let's say, 1000 people, even if all 1000 decide not to sign, the diff between 110k and 111k is a grand total of fk all.

By all means, don't sign the petition, plenty of people read and decided for themselves, no issues with that at all. Ending post with 'not signing' is a signature of a numpty, and I'm being kind here.

[13m]

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

In point of fact it doesn't have zero effect. The weight of the response is often considered a barometer of public opinion.

I think some people post here to explain that not everyone shares your point of view. You two seem to think that if dissenters were not doing that they'd be signing the petition.

Your above comments suggest that you might be the numpties here, not those who haven't signed.

You are missing the point, unsurprisingly. Try to read what I wrote. People can sign or not, no issues with that at all. To end your post with 'not signing', after petition already reached threshold is being a numpty. Do you understand the difference between the two?

I think it's you who is missing the point. The total number of signatures is relevant even if the threshold for referral is met.

Let's try again slowly. Once petition hits 100k it will be debated in Parliament. So far so good? There are over 110k signatures on the petition already. This thread is read by let's say, 1000 people, even if all 1000 decide not to sign, the diff between 110k and 111k is a grand total of fk all.

By all means, don't sign the petition, plenty of people read and decided for themselves, no issues with that at all. Ending post with 'not signing' is a signature of a numpty, and I'm being kind here.

If you read what you said abut three posts up, you said that further signatures are irrelevant because the threshold has been reached. Now you seem to have changed your argument to say that PH signatures are not relevant because they are too few.

You also seem to have misunderstood why people add "not signing" or similar to their posts.

[jjlynn27]

13m said:

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

In point of fact it doesn't have zero effect. The weight of the response is often considered a barometer of public opinion.

I think some people post here to explain that not everyone shares your point of view. You two seem to think that if dissenters were not doing that they'd be signing the petition.

Your above comments suggest that you might be the numpties here, not those who haven't signed.

You are missing the point, unsurprisingly. Try to read what I wrote. People can sign or not, no issues with that at all. To end your post with 'not signing', after petition already reached threshold is being a numpty. Do you understand the difference between the two?

I think it's you who is missing the point. The total number of signatures is relevant even if the threshold for referral is met.

Let's try again slowly. Once petition hits 100k it will be debated in Parliament. So far so good? There are over 110k signatures on the petition already. This thread is read by let's say, 1000 people, even if all 1000 decide not to sign, the diff between 110k and 111k is a grand total of fk all.

By all means, don't sign the petition, plenty of people read and decided for themselves, no issues with that at all. Ending post with 'not signing' is a signature of a numpty, and I'm being kind here.

If you read what you said abut three posts up, you said that further signatures are irrelevant because the threshold has been reached. Now you seem to have changed your argument to say that PH signatures are not relevant because they are too few.

You also seem to have misunderstood why people add "not signing" or similar to their posts.

Like pulling teeth. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

The post was an obvious reply to 'not signing' signature. Ok? The goal was achieved; 100k signatures. You made stuff that additional signatures are important. They are not, it will be discussed with 100,000 signatures it will be discussed with 120,000. Most people discussing this in parliament will probably have zero clues how many signatures are there.

[Ean218]

jjlynn27 said:

Most people discussing this in parliament will probably have zero clues how many signatures are there.

As there will probably only be 3 of them on the rainy Friday afternoon when it is discussed, why should they?

To think that a petition like this with only just 100,000 signatures is even remotely important in the parliamentary scale of things is absurd.

[Amateurish]

Just to put the 193 assaults a day figure in some context - 144 of those assaults "were considered, in the
opinion of an appropriate person at the time of the incident, to have been unintentional due to
‘medical’ reasons prevailing at the time".

[13m]

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

jjlynn27 said:

13m said:

In point of fact it doesn't have zero effect. The weight of the response is often considered a barometer of public opinion.

I think some people post here to explain that not everyone shares your point of view. You two seem to think that if dissenters were not doing that they'd be signing the petition.

Your above comments suggest that you might be the numpties here, not those who haven't signed.

You are missing the point, unsurprisingly. Try to read what I wrote. People can sign or not, no issues with that at all. To end your post with 'not signing', after petition already reached threshold is being a numpty. Do you understand the difference between the two?

I think it's you who is missing the point. The total number of signatures is relevant even if the threshold for referral is met.

Let's try again slowly. Once petition hits 100k it will be debated in Parliament. So far so good? There are over 110k signatures on the petition already. This thread is read by let's say, 1000 people, even if all 1000 decide not to sign, the diff between 110k and 111k is a grand total of fk all.

By all means, don't sign the petition, plenty of people read and decided for themselves, no issues with that at all. Ending post with 'not signing' is a signature of a numpty, and I'm being kind here.

If you read what you said abut three posts up, you said that further signatures are irrelevant because the threshold has been reached. Now you seem to have changed your argument to say that PH signatures are not relevant because they are too few.

You also seem to have misunderstood why people add "not signing" or similar to their posts.

Like pulling teeth. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

The post was an obvious reply to 'not signing' signature. Ok? The goal was achieved; 100k signatures. You made stuff that additional signatures are important. They are not, it will be discussed with 100,000 signatures it will be discussed with 120,000. Most people discussing this in parliament will probably have zero clues how many signatures are there.

I didn't say they were important, I said they were relevant.

Yes, MPs will know how many signatories there were.

It appears that what you're really looking for is an argument, judging by your tone and ever-changing arguments. Unfortunately I haven't time to oblige.