Three-quarters of nurses call for more staff to give proper care (From Daily Echo)

Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Having the right amount of staff is not going to happen, with a Tory or Labour Government or any type of Capitalist Government.
The Capitalist want there hands on the NHS and have it privatise, that why in the last 30 years the NHS is being run down, short funded, and short of staff and equipment.
When the NHS has gone its going to cost people a lot more than it will now, You will be still paying NI, but you will need 2 Health Insurance, one for general day to day and family insurance, and another for work liability insurance.

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

The story relates to the fact that the NHS are claiming staff shortages. Yet another survey shows the amount of sick leave NHS staff take, and, used the private sector as a comparison.

Still waiting for you to provide records to show how the private health sector is worse.

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

As usual you introduce a facet that exists only in your own mind to try and muddy the waters. Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work. Whether it's true or not they are still listed as 'sick' and this is the information used to work out the statistics. How can you continually fail to understand something that would be clear to a three year old? I expect one of your imminent posts will blame the idle rich, Margaret Thatcher, the Magna Carta and your mysterious Sikh friend that no-one else seems to be able to track down.

Send in the army, that's this pathetic government's answer to the shortages caused by its policy of mass sackings in the public sector!
Too bad they're slashing the army numbers as well, who will they turn to then?

We ought to remember that nurses are exposed to all sorts of stuff that might make them ill.

The physical duties can also take a toll, my mother worked as a care assistant for many years although she may as well have been a nurse, lifting obese OAPs for years has done her back in, fortunately the equipment has got better over the years, sit in hoists and the like.

Not sure if more nurses are the answer, there seems to be a steady flow of Phillipino nurses now, we need to make sure they are properly trained and work smarter.

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

The story relates to the fact that the NHS are claiming staff shortages. Yet another survey shows the amount of sick leave NHS staff take, and, used the private sector as a comparison.

Still waiting for you to provide records to show how the private health sector is worse.

This is what I am saying you can NOT compair the NHS to Private Health, the NHS do Private Health Services, think about it.
How you going to work out, the section of the NHS that end up doing Priate Health.
In private health they do not do over 12 hours aday.
And theres also this to think about the NHS end up doing Correction Surgery from the very few Private Hospitals.
Note HB you just can not compair.

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

As usual you introduce a facet that exists only in your own mind to try and muddy the waters. Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work. Whether it's true or not they are still listed as 'sick' and this is the information used to work out the statistics. How can you continually fail to understand something that would be clear to a three year old? I expect one of your imminent posts will blame the idle rich, Margaret Thatcher, the Magna Carta and your mysterious Sikh friend that no-one else seems to be able to track down.

Fact Torchie1 the NHS do Private Health Work.
No body can agrue over that matter, its not muddy the waters its making things a bit clearer to the post that HB put up Maybe there would be a case if there was a clear dividing line but there is not.

Torchie1 some thing for you to think about when you posted this part.

"Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work."

Now think about it very very carefully, that NHS worker, was they on Private Health Work that Day they phone in sick, and all the sick calls because they are Private Health Work that day, and they object doing such work in a NHS hospital. You or me can not say because its never recorded if those sick call in, are doing private health work.

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

The story relates to the fact that the NHS are claiming staff shortages. Yet another survey shows the amount of sick leave NHS staff take, and, used the private sector as a comparison.

Still waiting for you to provide records to show how the private health sector is worse.

This is what I am saying you can NOT compair the NHS to Private Health, the NHS do Private Health Services, think about it.
How you going to work out, the section of the NHS that end up doing Priate Health.
In private health they do not do over 12 hours aday.
And theres also this to think about the NHS end up doing Correction Surgery from the very few Private Hospitals.
Note HB you just can not compair.

It seerms that the official survey that was carried out, and I am sure their sources are better than yours, were happy to use the less sick days taken by the private sector as a comparison to the sick leave by the NHS.Unless we have comparisons,how else are we to be guided by what is good or bad?

It is also probable that by going through the records, they are aware of the NHS staff that are doing private work, and adjust the figures accordingly.

By the way, still waiting for your facts to back up your statement at 09-16.

southy wrote:
Torchie1 some thing for you to think about when you posted this part.

"Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work."

Now think about it very very carefully, that NHS worker, was they on Private Health Work that Day they phone in sick, and all the sick calls because they are Private Health Work that day, and they object doing such work in a NHS hospital. You or me can not say because its never recorded if those sick call in, are doing private health work.

Keep digging! :)

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

The story relates to the fact that the NHS are claiming staff shortages. Yet another survey shows the amount of sick leave NHS staff take, and, used the private sector as a comparison.

Still waiting for you to provide records to show how the private health sector is worse.

This is what I am saying you can NOT compair the NHS to Private Health, the NHS do Private Health Services, think about it.
How you going to work out, the section of the NHS that end up doing Priate Health.
In private health they do not do over 12 hours aday.
And theres also this to think about the NHS end up doing Correction Surgery from the very few Private Hospitals.
Note HB you just can not compair.

It seerms that the official survey that was carried out, and I am sure their sources are better than yours, were happy to use the less sick days taken by the private sector as a comparison to the sick leave by the NHS.Unless we have comparisons,how else are we to be guided by what is good or bad?

It is also probable that by going through the records, they are aware of the NHS staff that are doing private work, and adjust the figures accordingly.

By the way, still waiting for your facts to back up your statement at 09-16.

Its not recorded what work that they are on that day, all they get is a figure who is off work no other details.
If they are getting full details then they are manipulating the figures, by not publishing the full details.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Torchie1 some thing for you to think about when you posted this part.

"Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work."

Now think about it very very carefully, that NHS worker, was they on Private Health Work that Day they phone in sick, and all the sick calls because they are Private Health Work that day, and they object doing such work in a NHS hospital. You or me can not say because its never recorded if those sick call in, are doing private health work.

Keep digging! :)

Yes I know Torchie1 dug a hole for him self.

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Torchie1 some thing for you to think about when you posted this part.

"Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work."

Now think about it very very carefully, that NHS worker, was they on Private Health Work that Day they phone in sick, and all the sick calls because they are Private Health Work that day, and they object doing such work in a NHS hospital. You or me can not say because its never recorded if those sick call in, are doing private health work.

Keep digging! :)

Yes I know Torchie1 dug a hole for him self.

I meant you, numb nuts.

This report is outstanding in its target to dumb down the NHS.

1. Ask any group of specialists if they have enough colleagues to do all the work and most will say NO. Some will say NO because they think so, some because they want more people for political or social reasons, some because they like a chance to criticise the managers anonymously.

2. In spite of the invitation to be negative, a large minority (24%) were positive about the manning levels.

3. An overwhelming majority (66%) were happy.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:
Torchie1 some thing for you to think about when you posted this part.

"Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work."

Now think about it very very carefully, that NHS worker, was they on Private Health Work that Day they phone in sick, and all the sick calls because they are Private Health Work that day, and they object doing such work in a NHS hospital. You or me can not say because its never recorded if those sick call in, are doing private health work.

Keep digging! :)

Yes I know Torchie1 dug a hole for him self.

I meant you, numb nuts.

Then you must be just as big a fool then by not relising who they do these so called fact and figures of people of sick.

If they had less managers without medical training and more staff with proper training, the situation would be 100 per cent better. A proper Matron ran the hospital without managers and subsidary staff. Lansley wants to privatise the NHS by any means.

The NHS and Police have had so much extra money over the last 30 years
We should be asking why have there not been results
Nursing seems to have gone astray once Barbara Castle stopped pay beds that lead to an increase in private hospitals
Prior to that at least a hospital knew where their consultants were during the day
& a hospital could charge private patients rather than the poor visitor to their car parks
Also I wonder if the modern training is producing lesser quality staff at a greater total cost than the more hands on approach of the past

The contracts negotiated by senior staff appear to prove they are better negotiators than those of any party in power

As in the computer fiaso's
? was it Edwina Curies ex hubby that had £20,000,000 from Winchester Area Health all those years ago on a failed computer system

My wife is a nurse and I regard her rate of pay and conditions as very good
However yes she has to work hard

Another public service I question where the money is producing an improvement is the Police
Looking on Eastleigh web site I see a resolution of vehicle crime at about 6% if I am reading this correctly
Also I notice Southampton council have security patrols around some estates
So they must be pleased with the police coverage

So perhaps when we get elected Police Chiefs we should also get elected Area Health Chiefs
We have to hold someone responsible rather than let these organisations keep just spending our money
On second thoughts looking at elected democracy in Southampton, Eastleigh & Hampshire I do not think that will work ? anyone got any ideas
Do not worry about punctuation my eyesight & co ordination not good and you do not wish to know that story
Perhaps the Sweed's had it right with a form of conscription to some public services

southy wrote:
Torchie1 some thing for you to think about when you posted this part.

"Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work."

Now think about it very very carefully, that NHS worker, was they on Private Health Work that Day they phone in sick, and all the sick calls because they are Private Health Work that day, and they object doing such work in a NHS hospital. You or me can not say because its never recorded if those sick call in, are doing private health work.

Having spent half a second contemplating your bizarre reply it now seems that you are accusing NHS staff of absenting themselves as 'sick' in order to work at a private hospital because they object to working in an NHS hospital. You are now accusing NHS staff of lying about their 'illness' and fraudulently obtaining sickness benefits. How can you ever
expect to be taken seriously when you post your surreal thoughts on a public forum when it will probably be seen by members of the union concerned? Is there no limit to your stupidity?

Bagamn wrote:
If they had less managers without medical training and more staff with proper training, the situation would be 100 per cent better. A proper Matron ran the hospital without managers and subsidary staff. Lansley wants to privatise the NHS by any means.

One of my agruements against all the Trust boards in the UK, very few medical knowledge people on these boards and yet each one of these trust boards in the UK cost about £1 million a year in wages, for only 1 or 2 days per mth.

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:
Torchie1 some thing for you to think about when you posted this part.

"Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work."

Now think about it very very carefully, that NHS worker, was they on Private Health Work that Day they phone in sick, and all the sick calls because they are Private Health Work that day, and they object doing such work in a NHS hospital. You or me can not say because its never recorded if those sick call in, are doing private health work.

Having spent half a second contemplating your bizarre reply it now seems that you are accusing NHS staff of absenting themselves as 'sick' in order to work at a private hospital because they object to working in an NHS hospital. You are now accusing NHS staff of lying about their 'illness' and fraudulently obtaining sickness benefits. How can you ever
expect to be taken seriously when you post your surreal thoughts on a public forum when it will probably be seen by members of the union concerned? Is there no limit to your stupidity?

You have done it your self often enough. And look how I said it, I telling you we do not know the full fact and figures, it is not published it only publish how many are of sick and that is it.
Think about for a day or two, you or I do not really know what is going on because we are only be giving a small part of the facts, the facts that they want you to see and that is it.

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

The story relates to the fact that the NHS are claiming staff shortages. Yet another survey shows the amount of sick leave NHS staff take, and, used the private sector as a comparison.

Still waiting for you to provide records to show how the private health sector is worse.

This is what I am saying you can NOT compair the NHS to Private Health, the NHS do Private Health Services, think about it.
How you going to work out, the section of the NHS that end up doing Priate Health.
In private health they do not do over 12 hours aday.
And theres also this to think about the NHS end up doing Correction Surgery from the very few Private Hospitals.
Note HB you just can not compair.

It seerms that the official survey that was carried out, and I am sure their sources are better than yours, were happy to use the less sick days taken by the private sector as a comparison to the sick leave by the NHS.Unless we have comparisons,how else are we to be guided by what is good or bad?

It is also probable that by going through the records, they are aware of the NHS staff that are doing private work, and adjust the figures accordingly.

By the way, still waiting for your facts to back up your statement at 09-16.

Its not recorded what work that they are on that day, all they get is a figure who is off work no other details.
If they are getting full details then they are manipulating the figures, by not publishing the full details.

Still waiting for your proof to back up your statement made at 09-16am.

The nurses and all front end staff do a great job. The NHS is very well funded for now. The problem is, and always has been, poor administration soaking up finances unnecessarily. (Too many management layers and to many incompetent people spending money with no proper accountability). Until you run it like the Private sector or along business principles it will continue to soak up money and will eventually implode.
>
Firstly, you have to get the senior medical people and the senior management working together instead of against each other! ( This filters all the way down to the nurses).

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:
Torchie1 some thing for you to think about when you posted this part.

"Someone is marked as 'absent due to illness' when they contact their employer and tell them that they feel unwell and won't be coming to work."

Now think about it very very carefully, that NHS worker, was they on Private Health Work that Day they phone in sick, and all the sick calls because they are Private Health Work that day, and they object doing such work in a NHS hospital. You or me can not say because its never recorded if those sick call in, are doing private health work.

Having spent half a second contemplating your bizarre reply it now seems that you are accusing NHS staff of absenting themselves as 'sick' in order to work at a private hospital because they object to working in an NHS hospital. You are now accusing NHS staff of lying about their 'illness' and fraudulently obtaining sickness benefits. How can you ever
expect to be taken seriously when you post your surreal thoughts on a public forum when it will probably be seen by members of the union concerned? Is there no limit to your stupidity?

You have done it your self often enough. And look how I said it, I telling you we do not know the full fact and figures, it is not published it only publish how many are of sick and that is it.
Think about for a day or two, you or I do not really know what is going on because we are only be giving a small part of the facts, the facts that they want you to see and that is it.

You can wriggle all you like but when someone absents themselves from work the employer has to place that person in one of a number of categories. The employee is for example allowed a certain number of Holiday days or Time of in Lieu days and the absentee may not be at work for those reasons. Sickness benefit payable for short term illness also requires categorisation because a Benefit payment is involved so I'm afraid it is recorded in a way that than can allow the absenteeism to be placed in the appropriate column. In this case they are using that information to provide the statistics that the lead article is about. Yet again you get involved in a discussion which you clearly know nothing about so why don't you bow out gracefully or are you going to compound the crime and waffle on about the invisible Sikh or how a 1986 library book is more useful as a source of information rather than trusting the Internet?

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

The story relates to the fact that the NHS are claiming staff shortages. Yet another survey shows the amount of sick leave NHS staff take, and, used the private sector as a comparison.

Still waiting for you to provide records to show how the private health sector is worse.

This is what I am saying you can NOT compair the NHS to Private Health, the NHS do Private Health Services, think about it.
How you going to work out, the section of the NHS that end up doing Priate Health.
In private health they do not do over 12 hours aday.
And theres also this to think about the NHS end up doing Correction Surgery from the very few Private Hospitals.
Note HB you just can not compair.

It seerms that the official survey that was carried out, and I am sure their sources are better than yours, were happy to use the less sick days taken by the private sector as a comparison to the sick leave by the NHS.Unless we have comparisons,how else are we to be guided by what is good or bad?

It is also probable that by going through the records, they are aware of the NHS staff that are doing private work, and adjust the figures accordingly.

By the way, still waiting for your facts to back up your statement at 09-16.

Its not recorded what work that they are on that day, all they get is a figure who is off work no other details.
If they are getting full details then they are manipulating the figures, by not publishing the full details.

Still waiting for your proof to back up your statement made at 09-16am.

HB there is nothing to be proved, the same as you can not prove your figures, and the reason why to taking it for granted that 2 figures tell you the full facts when it do not.
Now would you like me to repeat it all over again.
You and me do not know how those figures are made up.
1 The NHS do most of Private Health Care Work. (there are to few PHH).
2 How many of these NHS staff was due to do Private Health Work that day they called in sick.
3 How many are Employed by the NHS, And How many are employed in the Private Health.

"Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''
Just look at what you posted here, its from a another NEWSPAPER, by any chance would that be one off Murdoch Beano newspapers who are well know to publish figures to suit there way of thinking, Murdoch Empire is all for Privatising the NHS.
Private sector had 6 of sick, it do not tell you what group of the public sector, I can see its not the whole private sector, its way to low. So we have got to take it you mean Private Hospitals, you should ask your self this right away.
How many Private Health Hospitals are there in the UK.
How many NHS Hospitals are there in the UK.

So you wont provide the info to back up what you say, and not for the first time. At least I gave where my information came from, and you can believe, disbelieve or follow up to your hearts content.

It seems that you make comments on almost every subject possible, and in many instances you are proved wrong. In future, along with all the other drivel and rubbish you spout, I would suggest you DO NOT make sweeping statements unless you can prove, when challenged, the facts to back them up.

southy wrote:

Bagamn wrote:
If they had less managers without medical training and more staff with proper training, the situation would be 100 per cent better. A proper Matron ran the hospital without managers and subsidary staff. Lansley wants to privatise the NHS by any means.

One of my agruements against all the Trust boards in the UK, very few medical knowledge people on these boards and yet each one of these trust boards in the UK cost about £1 million a year in wages, for only 1 or 2 days per mth.

The rule of one overseer to 6 operational technicians holds good for most technical administrations, with one superintendent for 6 every overseers, and one manager for every 6 superintendents, and one general manager for every 6 managers, and so on up to the chief executive. With this structure, there will always be far more operational technicians than management officers. At some point in the management structure, the management become more concerned in things like resource planning and finance and they need to be experts in those disciplines - having no need to be qualified in operational details.

southy wrote:

Bagamn wrote:
If they had less managers without medical training and more staff with proper training, the situation would be 100 per cent better. A proper Matron ran the hospital without managers and subsidary staff. Lansley wants to privatise the NHS by any means.

One of my agruements against all the Trust boards in the UK, very few medical knowledge people on these boards and yet each one of these trust boards in the UK cost about £1 million a year in wages, for only 1 or 2 days per mth.

Total and utter cobblers, as I've proven to you before.

Non-execs (the ones that do a couple of days each month) get around 8k per year.

£1m a year, lol. You're a fantasist.

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

The story relates to the fact that the NHS are claiming staff shortages. Yet another survey shows the amount of sick leave NHS staff take, and, used the private sector as a comparison.

Still waiting for you to provide records to show how the private health sector is worse.

This is what I am saying you can NOT compair the NHS to Private Health, the NHS do Private Health Services, think about it.
How you going to work out, the section of the NHS that end up doing Priate Health.
In private health they do not do over 12 hours aday.
And theres also this to think about the NHS end up doing Correction Surgery from the very few Private Hospitals.
Note HB you just can not compair.

It seerms that the official survey that was carried out, and I am sure their sources are better than yours, were happy to use the less sick days taken by the private sector as a comparison to the sick leave by the NHS.Unless we have comparisons,how else are we to be guided by what is good or bad?

It is also probable that by going through the records, they are aware of the NHS staff that are doing private work, and adjust the figures accordingly.

By the way, still waiting for your facts to back up your statement at 09-16.

Its not recorded what work that they are on that day, all they get is a figure who is off work no other details.
If they are getting full details then they are manipulating the figures, by not publishing the full details.

Still waiting for your proof to back up your statement made at 09-16am.

HB there is nothing to be proved, the same as you can not prove your figures, and the reason why to taking it for granted that 2 figures tell you the full facts when it do not.
Now would you like me to repeat it all over again.
You and me do not know how those figures are made up.
1 The NHS do most of Private Health Care Work. (there are to few PHH).
2 How many of these NHS staff was due to do Private Health Work that day they called in sick.
3 How many are Employed by the NHS, And How many are employed in the Private Health.

"Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''
Just look at what you posted here, its from a another NEWSPAPER, by any chance would that be one off Murdoch Beano newspapers who are well know to publish figures to suit there way of thinking, Murdoch Empire is all for Privatising the NHS.
Private sector had 6 of sick, it do not tell you what group of the public sector, I can see its not the whole private sector, its way to low. So we have got to take it you mean Private Hospitals, you should ask your self this right away.
How many Private Health Hospitals are there in the UK.
How many NHS Hospitals are there in the UK.

I first saw it on the BBC News site. As far as I am aware he doesn't own the BBC but I'm sure you can come up with a reason why he actually does.

Now, I am not knocking the nurses and, here's the 'but'. My wife was at the General at 7-30 am for day surgery. What time did this surgery take place? 1pm! There were other patients there including one's to be admitted for overstay surgery. When we left they were still unseen by the medical team, doctors/nurses etc. They had not eaten since 10pm the night before (like my wife) and some were in deed 'flagging'. There were nurses just wandering around and why does it take 2/3 nurses to weigh patients and do the mundane tasks like paperwork? Surely theses highly trained nurses should be doing the professional nursing! The mind boggles as to the waste in the NHS. Then there's the agency nurses that get paid ridiculous rates to replace sick and non show nurses.

bazzeroz wrote:
Now, I am not knocking the nurses and, here's the 'but'. My wife was at the General at 7-30 am for day surgery. What time did this surgery take place? 1pm! There were other patients there including one's to be admitted for overstay surgery. When we left they were still unseen by the medical team, doctors/nurses etc. They had not eaten since 10pm the night before (like my wife) and some were in deed 'flagging'. There were nurses just wandering around and why does it take 2/3 nurses to weigh patients and do the mundane tasks like paperwork? Surely theses highly trained nurses should be doing the professional nursing! The mind boggles as to the waste in the NHS. Then there's the agency nurses that get paid ridiculous rates to replace sick and non show nurses.

I've ever seen a nurse busy for the whole of her shift either. You can dispute this all you want but that's my impression.

And isn't it a given that number of days taken sick in the public sector is higher than that in the private sector, irrespective of which industry/sector etc?

Southy you are either a complete idiot, someone else who has stolen Southy's log in, or someone has deviously wormed their way into your computer and reset your google capabilities to produce rubbish.

1. NHS staff do not know who they will be treating day to day and even then rarely have any need to know which ones are private as they get the same treatment it is only the accomdation, food, etc that may vary.

2. All NHS Trust have to have at least one nurse, one doctor, one accountant, and one chief executive on the board. All at the top of their profession and paid accordingly. Non-Execs get about £6k > £10k.

The simple point you should have made to address any anti-nhs spite is that all health systems in the 1st world have slightly increased sickness levels for two clear reasons:-

1. They are exposed to more illness than the rest of us.

2. They are required to stay away from work whilst still infectious which most others areas of work are not.

See, it is possible to defend the publc sector without talking b******s.

owen_thesaints wrote:

bazzeroz wrote:
Now, I am not knocking the nurses and, here's the 'but'. My wife was at the General at 7-30 am for day surgery. What time did this surgery take place? 1pm! There were other patients there including one's to be admitted for overstay surgery. When we left they were still unseen by the medical team, doctors/nurses etc. They had not eaten since 10pm the night before (like my wife) and some were in deed 'flagging'. There were nurses just wandering around and why does it take 2/3 nurses to weigh patients and do the mundane tasks like paperwork? Surely theses highly trained nurses should be doing the professional nursing! The mind boggles as to the waste in the NHS. Then there's the agency nurses that get paid ridiculous rates to replace sick and non show nurses.

I've ever seen a nurse busy for the whole of her shift either. You can dispute this all you want but that's my impression.

And isn't it a given that number of days taken sick in the public sector is higher than that in the private sector, irrespective of which industry/sector etc?

We shouldn’t expect too much from our nurses. After all, many are inexperienced young women trying to make the best of monotonous routines for unfortunate patients - hardly a recipe for enthusiasm.

good-gosh says... "We shouldn’t expect too much from our nurses. After all, many are inexperienced young women trying to make the best of monotonous routines for unfortunate patients - hardly a recipe for enthusiasm"
Inexperienced? I thought they done about 5 years training and it was their choice of profession after all.

On the inside wrote:
Southy you are either a complete idiot, someone else who has stolen Southy's log in, or someone has deviously wormed their way into your computer and reset your google capabilities to produce rubbish.

1. NHS staff do not know who they will be treating day to day and even then rarely have any need to know which ones are private as they get the same treatment it is only the accomdation, food, etc that may vary.

2. All NHS Trust have to have at least one nurse, one doctor, one accountant, and one chief executive on the board. All at the top of their profession and paid accordingly. Non-Execs get about £6k > £10k.

The simple point you should have made to address any anti-nhs spite is that all health systems in the 1st world have slightly increased sickness levels for two clear reasons:-

1. They are exposed to more illness than the rest of us.

2. They are required to stay away from work whilst still infectious which most others areas of work are not.

See, it is possible to defend the publc sector without talking b******s.

Well said. Some of that I was going to post, but didn't have the patience to!

Just to re-emphasise those very key points -

1) People working with sick people every day run the risk of getting sick. That they have more sick days than an accountant should hardly come as a surprise.

2) Any sign of vomiting or diarrhoea and the NHS bans its staff from work for 48 hours, in order to protect their patients. A sensible precaution, but one that boosts sick days taken in comparison to the private sector.

cantthinkofone wrote:

On the inside wrote:
Southy you are either a complete idiot, someone else who has stolen Southy's log in, or someone has deviously wormed their way into your computer and reset your google capabilities to produce rubbish.

1. NHS staff do not know who they will be treating day to day and even then rarely have any need to know which ones are private as they get the same treatment it is only the accomdation, food, etc that may vary.

2. All NHS Trust have to have at least one nurse, one doctor, one accountant, and one chief executive on the board. All at the top of their profession and paid accordingly. Non-Execs get about £6k > £10k.

The simple point you should have made to address any anti-nhs spite is that all health systems in the 1st world have slightly increased sickness levels for two clear reasons:-

1. They are exposed to more illness than the rest of us.

2. They are required to stay away from work whilst still infectious which most others areas of work are not.

See, it is possible to defend the publc sector without talking b******s.

Well said. Some of that I was going to post, but didn't have the patience to!

Just to re-emphasise those very key points -

1) People working with sick people every day run the risk of getting sick. That they have more sick days than an accountant should hardly come as a surprise.

2) Any sign of vomiting or diarrhoea and the NHS bans its staff from work for 48 hours, in order to protect their patients. A sensible precaution, but one that boosts sick days taken in comparison to the private sector.

So the staff at the General aren't guilty of throwing a sickie so that they can do a shift at The Spire.......... as they have been accused of by the raving socialist Southy?

Torchie1 wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

On the inside wrote:
Southy you are either a complete idiot, someone else who has stolen Southy's log in, or someone has deviously wormed their way into your computer and reset your google capabilities to produce rubbish.

1. NHS staff do not know who they will be treating day to day and even then rarely have any need to know which ones are private as they get the same treatment it is only the accomdation, food, etc that may vary.

2. All NHS Trust have to have at least one nurse, one doctor, one accountant, and one chief executive on the board. All at the top of their profession and paid accordingly. Non-Execs get about £6k > £10k.

The simple point you should have made to address any anti-nhs spite is that all health systems in the 1st world have slightly increased sickness levels for two clear reasons:-

1. They are exposed to more illness than the rest of us.

2. They are required to stay away from work whilst still infectious which most others areas of work are not.

See, it is possible to defend the publc sector without talking b******s.

Well said. Some of that I was going to post, but didn't have the patience to!

Just to re-emphasise those very key points -

1) People working with sick people every day run the risk of getting sick. That they have more sick days than an accountant should hardly come as a surprise.

2) Any sign of vomiting or diarrhoea and the NHS bans its staff from work for 48 hours, in order to protect their patients. A sensible precaution, but one that boosts sick days taken in comparison to the private sector.

So the staff at the General aren't guilty of throwing a sickie so that they can do a shift at The Spire.......... as they have been accused of by the raving socialist Southy?

Seeing as the doctors they'd be working alongside are likely to be the same ones they work alongside at the General, it would be a bit of a risky manoeuvre!

bazzeroz wrote:
good-gosh says... "We shouldn’t expect too much from our nurses. After all, many are inexperienced young women trying to make the best of monotonous routines for unfortunate patients - hardly a recipe for enthusiasm"
Inexperienced? I thought they done about 5 years training and it was their choice of profession after all.

Ah yes, I see your point, but you are referring to student experience, while I was thinking of post-graduate experience.

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:

southy wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''

No wonder they are short staffed.

But not in the Private Health Service there record is even worse.

The story is about NHS, not private health sector, but no doubt you have facts to back up your statement.

Thats right hulla baloo, so by your reckoning what you posted about the Private sector is not about the NHS.

Look how they work out the figures off days of sick, you take the NHS they do alot of Private health work, because they have the staff and equipment, and private health que jumps the NHS. so how would count these

The story relates to the fact that the NHS are claiming staff shortages. Yet another survey shows the amount of sick leave NHS staff take, and, used the private sector as a comparison.

Still waiting for you to provide records to show how the private health sector is worse.

This is what I am saying you can NOT compair the NHS to Private Health, the NHS do Private Health Services, think about it.
How you going to work out, the section of the NHS that end up doing Priate Health.
In private health they do not do over 12 hours aday.
And theres also this to think about the NHS end up doing Correction Surgery from the very few Private Hospitals.
Note HB you just can not compair.

It seerms that the official survey that was carried out, and I am sure their sources are better than yours, were happy to use the less sick days taken by the private sector as a comparison to the sick leave by the NHS.Unless we have comparisons,how else are we to be guided by what is good or bad?

It is also probable that by going through the records, they are aware of the NHS staff that are doing private work, and adjust the figures accordingly.

By the way, still waiting for your facts to back up your statement at 09-16.

Its not recorded what work that they are on that day, all they get is a figure who is off work no other details.
If they are getting full details then they are manipulating the figures, by not publishing the full details.

Still waiting for your proof to back up your statement made at 09-16am.

HB there is nothing to be proved, the same as you can not prove your figures, and the reason why to taking it for granted that 2 figures tell you the full facts when it do not.
Now would you like me to repeat it all over again.
You and me do not know how those figures are made up.
1 The NHS do most of Private Health Care Work. (there are to few PHH).
2 How many of these NHS staff was due to do Private Health Work that day they called in sick.
3 How many are Employed by the NHS, And How many are employed in the Private Health.

"Meanwhile, headline from another newspaper reads '' NHS workers took 15 days off sick last year... compared with just SIX in the private sector''
Just look at what you posted here, its from a another NEWSPAPER, by any chance would that be one off Murdoch Beano newspapers who are well know to publish figures to suit there way of thinking, Murdoch Empire is all for Privatising the NHS.
Private sector had 6 of sick, it do not tell you what group of the public sector, I can see its not the whole private sector, its way to low. So we have got to take it you mean Private Hospitals, you should ask your self this right away.
How many Private Health Hospitals are there in the UK.
How many NHS Hospitals are there in the UK.

Discredit other people's sources: a fantastic way to wriggle out of producing any substantial argument.

Still at the old misinformation game, southy, I see. Give up. Your credibility is shot to pieces, especially after your most recent escapade of quoting a person who does not exist, and then avoiding all evidence that shows you simply made him up to cover your mistake.

cantthinkofone wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

cantthinkofone wrote:

On the inside wrote:
Southy you are either a complete idiot, someone else who has stolen Southy's log in, or someone has deviously wormed their way into your computer and reset your google capabilities to produce rubbish.

1. NHS staff do not know who they will be treating day to day and even then rarely have any need to know which ones are private as they get the same treatment it is only the accomdation, food, etc that may vary.

2. All NHS Trust have to have at least one nurse, one doctor, one accountant, and one chief executive on the board. All at the top of their profession and paid accordingly. Non-Execs get about £6k > £10k.

The simple point you should have made to address any anti-nhs spite is that all health systems in the 1st world have slightly increased sickness levels for two clear reasons:-

1. They are exposed to more illness than the rest of us.

2. They are required to stay away from work whilst still infectious which most others areas of work are not.

See, it is possible to defend the publc sector without talking b******s.

Well said. Some of that I was going to post, but didn't have the patience to!

Just to re-emphasise those very key points -

1) People working with sick people every day run the risk of getting sick. That they have more sick days than an accountant should hardly come as a surprise.

2) Any sign of vomiting or diarrhoea and the NHS bans its staff from work for 48 hours, in order to protect their patients. A sensible precaution, but one that boosts sick days taken in comparison to the private sector.

So the staff at the General aren't guilty of throwing a sickie so that they can do a shift at The Spire.......... as they have been accused of by the raving socialist Southy?

Seeing as the doctors they'd be working alongside are likely to be the same ones they work alongside at the General, it would be a bit of a risky manoeuvre!

I'm quite certain that it wouldn't happen, but I find it outrageous that the prolific posting local socialist champion of the underdog suggests it could be happening just to try and score a cheap point in yet another argument he is totally out of his depth in. Vote Pete Wyatt. TUSC. Champion of the NHS.