Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
Complicated? Ho Ho Ho, your assertion, not reality.
All fair and fine but a) if people claim that doctors are not protesting about pay and there's a placard with the slogal involving peanuts and monkeys, and there are more images online for anyone who wishes to search, then the claim is lost and b) the idea that this isn't politicised is risible, again images that show junior doctors wearing T-shirts claiming that one should never trust the NHS to a Tory and there are placards about privatisation when Labour are more guilty, the case is lost.
If those same people don't like reality that's one thing, arguing against it is silly and for all the claims of embarrassment and lack of knowledge, that reality (of motives at union and individual levels) is something that certain partisan PHers on this thread dislike having pushed in front of their face; that's tough titty. The dispute is politicised and it's about pay, all the whiny carp about saving the NHS is part bluster designed to gull a gullible public high on the emotion of family medicare issues into supporting strike action.
For the 95th time. Just because some people at a protest are saying those things doesn't mean that it represents the primary or even a significant motivation of the huge number of people who voted for a strike.All fair and fine but a) if people claim that doctors are not protesting about pay and there's a placard with the slogal involving peanuts and monkeys, and there are more images online for anyone who wishes to search, then the claim is lost and b) the idea that this isn't politicised is risible, again images that show junior doctors wearing T-shirts claiming that one should never trust the NHS to a Tory and there are placards about privatisation when Labour are more guilty, the case is lost.
If those same people don't like reality that's one thing, arguing against it is silly and for all the claims of embarrassment and lack of knowledge, that reality (of motives at union and individual levels) is something that certain partisan PHers on this thread dislike having pushed in front of their face; that's tough titty. The dispute is politicised and it's about pay, all the whiny carp about saving the NHS is part bluster designed to gull a gullible public high on the emotion of family medicare issues into supporting strike action.
Your point is also less worthy than it seems simply from an examination of the wide range of images available; anyone who thinks that the need to select two or three images for use on a thread means that there aren't plenty more, is operating at a very simplistic and superficial level. Even so, one counter-example still disproves any daft theory.
turbobloke said:
For the 96th time, the fact that most of the marchers stick to the woo-the-public gooey stuff isn't up for debate, the interesting angle is when some (more than one, a lot more) let the mask slip especially in terms of pay since this is what it boils down to...this thread has whines of its own about pay and cuts and rises if you wanted to look or could be circumspect enough to recall.
Your point is also less worthy than it seems simply from an examination of the wide range of images available; anyone who thinks that the need to select two or three images for use on a thread means that there aren't plenty more, is operating at a very simplistic and superficial level. Even so, one counter-example still disproves any daft theory.
Such a large vote in favour of action would tend to suggest that your marchers are not fully representative of the numbers of those in favour of strike action, therefore the rest of your post can be dismissed.Your point is also less worthy than it seems simply from an examination of the wide range of images available; anyone who thinks that the need to select two or three images for use on a thread means that there aren't plenty more, is operating at a very simplistic and superficial level. Even so, one counter-example still disproves any daft theory.
For the avoidance of doubt I have not said that no doctors have a political bias, some may very well do. However, I don't believe that enough of them do to make a difference to whether they collectively take a vote for strike action or not, regardless of your attempts to make it look as if people are suggesting precisely that.
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
For the 96th time, the fact that most of the marchers stick to the woo-the-public gooey stuff isn't up for debate, the interesting angle is when some (more than one, a lot more) let the mask slip especially in terms of pay since this is what it boils down to...this thread has whines of its own about pay and cuts and rises if you wanted to look or could be circumspect enough to recall.
Your point is also less worthy than it seems simply from an examination of the wide range of images available; anyone who thinks that the need to select two or three images for use on a thread means that there aren't plenty more, is operating at a very simplistic and superficial level. Even so, one counter-example still disproves any daft theory.
Such a large vote in favour of action would tend to suggest that your marchers are not fully representative of the numbers of those in favour of strike action, therefore the rest of your post can be dismissed.Your point is also less worthy than it seems simply from an examination of the wide range of images available; anyone who thinks that the need to select two or three images for use on a thread means that there aren't plenty more, is operating at a very simplistic and superficial level. Even so, one counter-example still disproves any daft theory.
turbobloke said:
wolves_wanderer said:
turbobloke said:
For the 96th time, the fact that most of the marchers stick to the woo-the-public gooey stuff isn't up for debate, the interesting angle is when some (more than one, a lot more) let the mask slip especially in terms of pay since this is what it boils down to...this thread has whines of its own about pay and cuts and rises if you wanted to look or could be circumspect enough to recall.
Your point is also less worthy than it seems simply from an examination of the wide range of images available; anyone who thinks that the need to select two or three images for use on a thread means that there aren't plenty more, is operating at a very simplistic and superficial level. Even so, one counter-example still disproves any daft theory.
Such a large vote in favour of action would tend to suggest that your marchers are not fully representative of the numbers of those in favour of strike action, therefore the rest of your post can be dismissed.Your point is also less worthy than it seems simply from an examination of the wide range of images available; anyone who thinks that the need to select two or three images for use on a thread means that there aren't plenty more, is operating at a very simplistic and superficial level. Even so, one counter-example still disproves any daft theory.
turbobloke said:
And you're here to tell me otherwise, why, thank you! Impartial feedback from neutral parties is always appreciated rejected
I'm a senior doctor and have juniors who will be directly affected by this and know precisely how badly they will be affected as the restriction on their workings will be eliminated and their working day will be absurdly long. If that makes my opinion invalid (in your opinion) so be it.turbobloke said:
You were here not long ago claiming that doctors weren't protesting about moolah, as you know a single counter-example disproves a theory so you obviously haven't taken kindly to having yours blown out of the water.
I know you're very pleased with yourself to post a couple of photos from people marching, who themselves have a political agenda but before you start masturbating onto your keyboard, you might like to consider that these few photos may not represent every single one of the 98% of juniors (and majority of senior doctors) who oppose the imposition of this incredibly unfair and draconian contract that will do nothing but put patients in danger. The health secretary himself is pretending this is not about money as he wants to ensure that no one loses out, which of course is bks, but why should the juniors accept having to work much longer hours for less pay? turbobloke said:
Another nerve touched, another neurologocal appointment needed
Keep up the personal attention, I'm lovin' it (because it reveals the total lack of anything remotely evidential).
Yes you love the personal attention because you're a narcissist who thinks he's always right even when he has no clue about the subject he talks about and thinks that if he talks enough inflammatory, misinformed bks then a few of his sycophants will appear to support him. By the way its neurological not neurologocal, given that you're so smug and correct, you might have the courtesy to find out how to spell the word you are so happy to quote.Keep up the personal attention, I'm lovin' it (because it reveals the total lack of anything remotely evidential).
968 said:
turbobloke said:
And you're here to tell me otherwise, why, thank you! Impartial feedback from neutral parties is always appreciated rejected
I'm a senior doctor and have juniors who will be directly affected by this and know precisely how badly they will be affected as the restriction on their workings will be eliminated and their working day will be absurdly long. If that makes my opinion invalid (in your opinion) so be it.turbobloke said:
You were here not long ago claiming that doctors weren't protesting about moolah, as you know a single counter-example disproves a theory so you obviously haven't taken kindly to having yours blown out of the water.
I know you're very pleased with yourself to post a couple of photos from people marching, who themselves have a political agenda but before you start masturbating onto your keyboard, you might like to consider that these few photos may not represent every single one of the 98% of juniors (and majority of senior doctors) who oppose the imposition of this incredibly unfair and draconian contract that will do nothing but put patients in danger. The health secretary himself is pretending this is not about money as he wants to ensure that no one loses out, which of course is bks, but why should the juniors accept having to work much longer hours for less pay? turbobloke said:
Another nerve touched, another neurologocal appointment needed
Keep up the personal attention, I'm lovin' it (because it reveals the total lack of anything remotely evidential).
Yes you love the personal attention because you're a narcissist who thinks he's always right even when he has no clue about the subject he talks about and thinks that if he talks enough inflammatory, misinformed bks then a few of his sycophants will appear to support him. By the way its neurological not neurologocal, given that you're so smug and correct, you might have the courtesy to find out how to spell the word you are so happy to quote.Keep up the personal attention, I'm lovin' it (because it reveals the total lack of anything remotely evidential).
968 said:
I'm a senior doctor and have juniors who will be directly affected by this and know precisely how badly they will be affected as the restriction on their workings will be eliminated and their working day will be absurdly long. If that makes my opinion invalid (in your opinion) so be it.
I know you're very pleased with yourself to post a couple of photos from people marching, who themselves have a political agenda but before you start masturbating onto your keyboard, you might like to consider that these few photos may not represent every single one of the 98% of juniors (and majority of senior doctors) who oppose the imposition of this incredibly unfair and draconian contract that will do nothing but put patients in danger. The health secretary himself is pretending this is not about money as he wants to ensure that no one loses out, which of course is bks, but why should the juniors accept having to work much longer hours for less pay? .
Can I ask what these proposed changes to working hours are as im not aware of any proposed changes?I know you're very pleased with yourself to post a couple of photos from people marching, who themselves have a political agenda but before you start masturbating onto your keyboard, you might like to consider that these few photos may not represent every single one of the 98% of juniors (and majority of senior doctors) who oppose the imposition of this incredibly unfair and draconian contract that will do nothing but put patients in danger. The health secretary himself is pretending this is not about money as he wants to ensure that no one loses out, which of course is bks, but why should the juniors accept having to work much longer hours for less pay? .
bma said:
New Deal contracted hours
The New Deal or junior doctors contract specifies the maximum number of duty hours
for all junior doctors’ posts as:
• 72 hours a week on on-call rotas on average
• 64 hours a week on partial shifts on average
• 56 hours a week on full shifts on average.
However, as explained above, the EWTD definition of working time means that in
effect, doctors can work no more than 48 hours on average at the hospital per week.
And with regards to being worse off; im still yet to see anything that isnt greatly exaggerated such as "im going to be £1000 a month worse off"The New Deal or junior doctors contract specifies the maximum number of duty hours
for all junior doctors’ posts as:
• 72 hours a week on on-call rotas on average
• 64 hours a week on partial shifts on average
• 56 hours a week on full shifts on average.
However, as explained above, the EWTD definition of working time means that in
effect, doctors can work no more than 48 hours on average at the hospital per week.
968 said:
I'm a senior doctor and have juniors who will be directly affected by this and know precisely how badly they will be affected as the restriction on their workings will be eliminated and their working day will be absurdly long. If that makes my opinion invalid (in your opinion) so be it.
That and the rest of your vested interest diatribe do nothing to improve the apparent lack of sight and/or comprehension in failing to spot the obvious when it's on your screen.havingabarth said:
He's frantically searching Google Images for a rebuttal at this very moment...
No need.If 968's vested interest prevents sight of images on a forum they need an eye test.
If you and others don't like seeing it on PH you might like to search online for the dozens of alternative images of junior doctors with politicised slogans. I've already done so and I can see you appreciate it
All of the personal angle stuff is a clear symptom that certain people got their diagnosis wrong, no amount of me-too cuddles will sort the basic lack of reality infecting a minority who prefer petty name-calling as a means of responding to evidence.
More of the same would be great as there's absolutely nothing of substance in any of it.
So everything a doctor says is to be disregarded because of a potential vested interest. Can we assume that everything the government says is to be treated in the same way? If you can't see how hopelessly contradictory your position is then this conversation is even more pointless than most on here.
968 said:
...why should the juniors accept having to work much longer hours for less pay?...
That gem is...a gem.It's not about pay though. A small number of echo chamber types keep saying so, they must be right
As to terms and conditions, if they're so bad then there will be an imminent massive shortfall of recruits, way too few junior doctors, sticking plaster 'solutions' will be seen for what they are, and the government will have no choice in what happens next, as the market rate will go up.
That's absolutely fine. Meanwhile if some doctors decide to strike because they want to resemble dockers and journalists and tube train drivers, not everyone will be sympathetic.
A bit more pay for doctors when a lot of workers have endured job losses and pay cuts and pay freezes since 2008, well OK there's some benefit of the doubt in reserve as until now medics have been held in high esteem. If there's a pay cut for longer hours, as many workers suffered to keep their fellow employees in a job and their company afloat, then accept it or move out (but see my comment above about market rates when that happens to a significant degree).
Turbo, My Daughter is a junior doctor, She played polo for her med school and I got to meet a lot of her fellow students. Her F1 year she was at our local hospital and we hosted parties for her and lots of the Junior doctors, a few had what you would call socialist leanings but were far too busy being doctors to give it any real thought. These are the opinions I base my assertions on.
My Daughter is somewhere to the right of Mussolini.
You seem to have got all of your facts from sky TV and Hunt, perhaps you would like to name some of the Junior doctors you have discussed this with.
My Daughter is somewhere to the right of Mussolini.
You seem to have got all of your facts from sky TV and Hunt, perhaps you would like to name some of the Junior doctors you have discussed this with.
Dixy said:
Turbo, My Daughter is a junior doctor, She played polo for her med school and I got to meet a lot of her fellow students. Her F1 year she was at our local hospital and we hosted parties for her and lots of the Junior doctors, a few had what you would call socialist leanings but were far too busy being doctors to give it any real thought. These are the opinions I base my assertions on.
My Daughter is somewhere to the right of Mussolini.
You seem to have got all of your facts from sky TV and Hunt, perhaps you would like to name some of the Junior doctors you have discussed this with.
My Daughter is somewhere to the right of Mussolini.
You seem to have got all of your facts from sky TV and Hunt, perhaps you would like to name some of the Junior doctors you have discussed this with.
Nice story, best wishes to your daughter, the vested interest was obvious long ago. Sure, a number of doctors will have socialist tendencies. It's curious but not a crime!
My facts are facts, that's correct. Where they come from alters nothing.
They relate to a worryingly large number of visual markers that this dispute was heavily politicised from the outset. No amount of infantile responses to seeing these images will change them.
Me not having a junior doctor daughter and me not being a senior doctor seems to allow me to see things that you and 968 miss. Whatever I've been doing over the years hasn't led to the kind of blinkered analysis seen from a small number of other vested interests on PH. That's vested interests for you and that's life
turbobloke said:
My facts are facts, that's correct.
Not really. You make up things as you go. You quote research that you don't understand. You are dodging the simple questions once again. Unsurprisingly. Picking few images where there are some political placards, as you'd expect from any large group, proves nothing. For every placard with political message there are hundreds that have nothing to do with politics.
From those lefties at express.
turbobloke said:
They relate to a worryingly large number of visual markers that this dispute was heavily politicised from the outset. No amount of infantile responses to seeing these images will change them.
Really? Worrying large eh? You seem to like pictures.From the same source as your placard that 'proves' your point.
turbobloke said:
Me not having a junior doctor daughter and me not being a senior doctor seems to allow me to see things that you and 968 miss.
It really doesn't. It allows you to bleat about 'lefties'. The protest would happen regardless of which party is in power. turbobloke said:
Whatever I've been doing over the years hasn't led to the kind of blinkered analysis seen from a small number of other vested interests on PH. That's vested interests for you and that's life
You don't do analysis. You search for things that you think support your view. When it's pointed out to you that, once again, you have no idea what you are talking about, you come up with the big guns; 'weasel words'. jjlynn27 said:
turbobloke said:
My facts are facts, that's correct.
Not really. You make up things as you go. You quote research that you don't understand. After popping out of the home office I must return to the biggest hoot of the day so far from the small PH coterie of vested interests in Pro-Doc Inc.
If I got information by text updates from a Government minister then presumably the wholly impartial information I received would be accepted by the vested interests.
If I got information from the BMA via a Junior Doctor offspring then presumably the wholly impartial information I received would be more than acceptable to the vested interests.
As it is, in gaining information from news released by both sides, broadcast via ITV or Sky, information from the ACAS talks, viewing online images of protests (that really took place, with real JDs with all too many real politicised banners) it appears that this information - the same type as received by tens of millions of other people with no dog in the fight - is somehow inferior to BMA propaganda and Government spin.
And I'm the one being told I don't know anything and that I'm embarrassed, by the same vested interests who in all probability get their information mostly from the same routes. Or, they swallow BMA propaganda or (less likely) Government spin in preference.
Priceless!
Countdown said:
Which makes it even more impressive that they're prepared to do 72-hour working weeks....
They wont be working for 72 hours straight though.Just in case you missed it.
bma said:
New Deal contracted hours
The New Deal or junior doctors contract specifies the maximum number of duty hours
for all junior doctors’ posts as:
• 72 hours a week on on-call rotas on average
• 64 hours a week on partial shifts on average
• 56 hours a week on full shifts on average.
However, as explained above, the EWTD definition of working time means that in
effect, doctors can work no more than 48 hours on average at the hospital per week.
The New Deal or junior doctors contract specifies the maximum number of duty hours
for all junior doctors’ posts as:
• 72 hours a week on on-call rotas on average
• 64 hours a week on partial shifts on average
• 56 hours a week on full shifts on average.
However, as explained above, the EWTD definition of working time means that in
effect, doctors can work no more than 48 hours on average at the hospital per week.
wolves_wanderer said:
So everything a doctor says is to be disregarded because of a potential vested interest. Can we assume that everything the government says is to be treated in the same way? If you can't see how hopelessly contradictory your position is then this conversation is even more pointless than most on here.
Yup, the only posters you can trust are the ones who don't have a clue what they are talking about. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff