WAMT....what annoyed me today!

Marc said:
Not so sure about that. It was by no means new when I got it last December.
Click to expand...


I hope they at least replaced the mattress or did you have to provide that yourself.:)
 
tarric said:
I have know doubt you're figures are corrector, I was replying to a specific post, and the absurdity of it, a patient has an item the patient needs the item but they have to return said item to their NHS trust and another NHS trust then has to asses the need for said item and resupply the item all which will no doubt cost the NHS a considerable amount in both time and money. The NHS is divided into little fiefdoms costing us the taxpayer billions, I can give one from personal experience soon after my daughter was born she became very ill due to kidney problems and had to have corrective surgery, at the time we lived on the Isle of Lewis, after the surgery she had to attended regular appointments to check everything was working as it should and to deal with ongoing problems from the surgery eventually needing a second operation, my wife and daughter would be flown from Stornoway to Aberdeen via Inverness met at Aberdeen by an ambulance and taken to the hospital she would then see the consultant who would order a MCUG scan my wife and daughter would then travel back to Aberdeen airport by ambulance and fly back to Stornoway this time via Glasgow a week or so later they would do the whole thing again to get the scan and about a week or so later they would do a third journey to see the consultant about the results, when I enquired as to whether it would be possible to have the scan before seeing the consultant and then an appointment to see the consultant later that day getting rid of the need for the two extra round trips I was told that the consultant had to see the patient before he could authorise the scan and then requesting it from the x ray department even though he new that there was no point in seeing the patient until the scan was done. Now while I accept that hospital have to have procedures this just struck me as a colossal waste of money.
Click to expand...

I agree, they could definitely streamline things, that sounds like quite the unnecessary fanfare you had to go through.
 
We need a pond maintenance chap to sort out some issues with our large pond. One came a week ago, sized up the not-too-difficult job..fairly easy,really ..just awkward plus getting the right parts..who said he'd send a quote. Heard nothing since. Called the office to be told he hasn't done the quote as they are involved in two large commercial jobs but the secretary said she'd provisionally book us in for the 28th.We're off on holiday soon after.The job must be done before we go. Now we have to find someone else. I despair at how tradesmen treat both potential customers and whilst doing jobs. We are fortunate in having two that are totally realiable and considerate.Consideration doesn't seem to come with the job in most cases. When we had a long garden fence put up behind large shrubs I later discovered that they'd taken a loose cream/beige cotswold stone off the top of our veg patch mini wall and used it to prop up the base of one of the panels whilst the cement set.
 
gman said:
I agree, they could definitely streamline things, that sounds like quite the unnecessary fanfare you had to go through.
Click to expand...
One might say, "they should put things back the way they were before Thatcher and the vegetables screwed the NHS"!
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
One might say, "they should put things back the way they were before Thatcher and the vegetables screwed the NHS"!
Click to expand...
If it were so easy why has it not been done? Thatcher left post 36 years ago. We should be looking at the successful models in some other countries (e.g. Germany) and with an all party agreement.

Dave
 
gman said:
Who are the vegetables?
Click to expand...
Spitting Image...

Waiter: "What will madam have this evening?"
Thatcher: "Raw steak".
Waiter: "and what about the vegetables"
Thatcher (glancing at the rest of the cabinet): "They'll have the same."
 
Dave Canon said:
If it were so easy why has it not been done? Thatcher left post 36 years ago. We should be looking at the successful models in some other countries (e.g. Germany) and with an all party agreement.

Dave
Click to expand...

My first thought was the PFI contracts, which I believe caused long-term financial strain and thankfully the model was retired in 2018. If memory serves it was Blair behind that. But even that was only a contributing factor.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Spitting Image...

Waiter: "What will madam have this evening?"
Thatcher: "Raw steak".
Waiter: "and what about the vegetables"
Thatcher (glancing at the rest of the cabinet): "They'll have the same."
Click to expand...

You do seem to have quite the obsession with Thatcher?
 
Dave Canon said:
If it were so easy why has it not been done?
Click to expand...
Because it isn't so easy.

I worked on creating the new systems for various trusts and it took a great deal of effort, just to get to the starting point. Acquiring the correct data, so that the broken away bits could talk to each other and to the centre, took a lot of effort. Remember, when Thatcher started this game, many of the newly independent units had little or no expertise with computers. Those that did were often stretched just keeping their current systems running. The NHS is vast and changing its course makes driving a supertanker through a chicane, look like child's play, in comparison.
Dave Canon said:
We should be looking at the successful models in some other countries (e.g. Germany)
Click to expand...
You seem to make the assumption that those countries have social, commercial and medical systems that can be translated to our needs. From what I was told, there was little if any commonality between the British NHS and other countries.
Dave Canon said:
... and with an all party agreement.
Click to expand...
Now that is something I'd really like to see but I reckon the age of miracles is far past, if it ever existed.
 
gman said:
You do seem to have quite the obsession with Thatcher?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Just disgust with the harm she did to a great many people.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Nope.

Just disgust with the harm she did to a great many people.
Click to expand...
But for some of us, she was a great PM. She taught us to try and do our best to support ourselves, and of course, there is of course, the Falklands, which Labour wanted to hand over to Argentina, despite the fact that the huge majority of those living their wanted to stay a British Overseas Territory. She also showed that a British government can't be held to ransom by trade unions.
 
Jelster said:
But for some of us, she was a great PM. She taught us to try and do our best to support ourselves, and of course, there is of course, the Falklands, which Labour wanted to hand over to Argentina, despite the fact that the huge majority of those living their wanted to stay a British Overseas Territory. She also showed that a British government can't be held to ransom by trade unions.
Click to expand...
She had the opportunity to make this country wealthy because of our assets, the biggest one being our North Sea oil and gas reserves.

She could have done the same as Norway and created a Sovereign Fund and ensured continued wealth for the UK but she didn’t.
Instead she sold off those assets to big oil companies just to create money to make tax cuts to ensure the re-election of the Tories.

The revenue we have had since then from the North Sea assets is a trifle compared to what it could have been if we’d done the same as Norway.

She also privatised our other assets to get the quick buck to make tax cuts to ensure victory at the polls, most of them eventually being controlled and owned by foreign entities.

She basically sold the family silver for a night in the pub!
 
Jelster said:
But for some of us, she was a great PM.
Click to expand...
I think that a better description would be a failed dictator
Jelster said:
She taught us to try and do our best to support ourselves,
Click to expand...
In my opinion she did exactly the opposite. She did her damnedest to destroy the welfare state and caused an ongoing fragmentation of society that is still afflicting us today.
Jelster said:
and of course, there is of course, the Falklands,
Click to expand...
She and her mates caused the mess, killed a lot of people for no good reason and then acted as if she was the queen. Remember her saying, to camera, "We are a grandmother"?
Jelster said:
... which Labour wanted to hand over to Argentina,
Click to expand...
At the time, that was probably the least bad solution.

It would have cost a fragment of the money wasted on a stupid, overblown playground fight. After all, possible sane reason could there be for starting a war to keep 2,247 people on an island nearly 8,000 miles from mainland Britain? How can anyone justify 904 deaths and 2,412 other casualties, for such a foolish purpose? Let's not get started on the 16 ships and 134 aircraft destroyed in pursuit of this "vital protection of our sovereign rights", which represented only part of the money and resources wasted on this stupid adventure.
Jelster said:
despite the fact that the huge majority of those living their wanted to stay a British Overseas Territory.
Click to expand...
At what point can anyone describe anything to do with those islands as "huge", beyond the waste of lives and material?
Jelster said:
She also showed that a British government can't be held to ransom by trade unions.
Click to expand...
The only thing she showed was that, if you're an idiot, you can always find another idiot, with whom to start a punch up.
 
footman said:
She had the opportunity to make this country wealthy because of our assets, the biggest one being our North Sea oil and gas reserves.

She could have done the same as Norway and created a Sovereign Fund and ensured continued wealth for the UK but she didn’t.
Instead she sold off those assets to big oil companies just to create money to make tax cuts to ensure the re-election of the Tories.

The revenue we have had since then from the North Sea assets is a trifle compared to what it could have been if we’d done the same as Norway.

She also privatised our other assets to get the quick buck to make tax cuts to ensure victory at the polls, most of them eventually being controlled and owned by foreign entities.

She basically sold the family silver for a night in the pub!
Click to expand...
Plus IIRC she made available the right to buy 'your' council house/flat which was great for those that could afford it.

However, she did not allow the councils to use the money to reinvest in new social housing projects and that too has echoed down the years and likely the root cause of the current pausity of social housing and the the building thereof:(
 
Thatcher brought a welcome change from the previous governments, and gave hope to a lot of ordinary people who would have continued trapped in rentals like their parents. As Jelster said, she gave people the idea that hard work would be rewarded, rather than the Labour governments that made hard work seem a waste of time.

She was certainly flawed, making some poor choices, but the Falklands wasn't one of them.
 
Box Brownie said:
However, she did not allow the councils to use the money to reinvest in new social housing projects and that too has echoed down the years and likely the root cause of the current pausity of social housing and the the building thereof:(
Click to expand...
Perhaps, that was because she appears to have hated working people with a passion, almost certainly inherited from her parents, who ran a small shop and were "pillars" of the local Methodist church. Her father was Mayor of Grantham for about a year, before being kicked out by the Labour landslide. That was probably another reason for her antipathy to people who lived in council housing.
 
Copied directly from the top of the OOF page...

"Absolutely nothing contentious ie no politics or religion!"
 
Sky said:
WAMT (and any other day):

Is people talking politics on a photography forum. :mad: :headbang:
Click to expand...

I suppose there is bound to be a little spillage in a thread which is about annoyances, but at least it's given you another reason to post in here! :D
 
gman said:
I suppose there is bound to be a little spillage in a thread which is about annoyances, but at least it's given you another reason to post in here! :D
Click to expand...
I'm sure that there's a tale to be told here...

Black and white cat on Garden path FZ821 P1010532.jpeg
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
At the time, that was probably the least bad solution.

It would have cost a fragment of the money wasted on a stupid, overblown playground fight. After all, possible sane reason could there be for starting a war to keep 2,247 people on an island nearly 8,000 miles from mainland Britain? How can anyone justify 904 deaths and 2,412 other casualties, for such a foolish purpose? Let's not get started on the 16 ships and 134 aircraft destroyed in pursuit of this "vital protection of our sovereign rights", which represented only part of the money and resources wasted on this stupid adventure.

At what point can anyone describe anything to do with those islands as "huge", beyond the waste of lives and material?
Click to expand...
We've had this argument before. The Argentinians started the war, not us, we just finished it. Just because they were relatively unguarded, does not make it an invitation for an invasion. I was in the TA at the time and was called up to cover in Germany for servicemen that had gone to the Falklands. None of the full time service men I met thought it was a bad idea, many of them would have liked to have been included.

We all have different views, mine are obviously polar opposites to yours.....
 
Jelster said:
We've had this argument before. The Argentinians started the war, not us, we just finished it. Just because they were relatively unguarded, does not make it an invitation for an invasion. I was in the TA at the time and was called up to cover in Germany for servicemen that had gone to the Falklands. None of the full time service men I met thought it was a bad idea, many of them would have liked to have been included.

We all have different views, mine are obviously polar opposites to yours.....
Click to expand...

How anyone can defend a violent Fascist invasion which had zero support on the islands isn't really worth thinking too much about. Nothing out of the mouths and keyboards of people views like Andrew is surprising anymore.

ancient_mariner said:
Thatcher brought a welcome change from the previous governments, and gave hope to a lot of ordinary people who would have continued trapped in rentals like their parents. As Jelster said, she gave people the idea that hard work would be rewarded, rather than the Labour governments that made hard work seem a waste of time.

She was certainly flawed, making some poor choices, but the Falklands wasn't one of them.
Click to expand...

She was a product of her time and a reaction to those who'd gone before and the policies they'd pursued. I think people forget the state the UK was in at the time, if it hadn't been in that state would there have been a Thatcher? People need to be very careful who they vote for. Then and next time.
 
Moderator on.

Lets move on from the politics - I'd mistaken this as the political thread initially, hence replying.

/Moderator
 
I do not believe I did ignore you. Your post was not there when I posted. It may have been better to move the thread given that this thread has posted incorrect facts about the Falklands which needed challenging.

Dave
 
Solicitors!

We've agreed a completion date of August 2 8th with the rest of the chain, but we still haven't exchanged, as there is still an enquiry outstanding (2 properties above us), and he solicitor seems to be dragging their heels. The real frustration is that we can't book removals until we've exchanged!
 
Marc said:
Solicitors!

We've agreed a completion date of August 2 8th with the rest of the chain, but we still haven't exchanged, as there is still an enquiry outstanding (2 properties above us), and he solicitor seems to be dragging their heels. The real frustration is that we can't book removals until we've exchanged!
Click to expand...
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :cautious:
 
Dave Canon said:
I do not believe I did ignore you. Your post was not there when I posted. It may have been better to move the thread given that this thread has posted incorrect facts about the Falklands which needed challenging.

Dave
Click to expand...

Look at the time stamps on the posts.
 
Marc said:
Solicitors!

We've agreed a completion date of August 2 8th with the rest of the chain, but we still haven't exchanged, as there is still an enquiry outstanding (2 properties above us), and he solicitor seems to be dragging their heels. The real frustration is that we can't book removals until we've exchanged!
Click to expand...

Hope it gets sorted for you soon, Marc. Moving house almost always seems to be an obstacle course.

All the best.

Dave
 
Last edited:
I've been having fun with a piece of sync software I use called Goodsync which you set up your folder pairs then you can scan for changes and it will show you what to do which you can check files that are going to be deleted or overwritten. I like to double check it's going to sync as I expect and not to make a mess of stuff if there's some error somewhere.

Today though it failed because I've hit the limits of the free version even though I was using the paid version. Sure enough, it wasn't showing as activated so I went through all the different activation methods and they all failed. I spoke with the company and they said they don't support activating any more but as a gesture of goodwill they would give me one year subscription to the new software despite mine being a perpetual license. I pointed out I had a lifetime license but they just said they don't support it any more even though it's them that broke it on purpose. It's crazy having a complex online activation for a basic file sync utility and even more ridiculous to need an annual subscription for a simple file sync utility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top