General Election 2019 thread (9 Viewers)

Otis

Well-Known Member
Yes, it was suspected pneumonia. He was later diagnosed with flu I believe, but at the time he was sleeping on the floor he hadn't been fully diagnosed and triage team thought it was pneumonia.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Yes, exactly, so to dismiss it as flu is a bit disingenuous. They didn't know it was just flu at the time.
 

theferret

Well-Known Member
I can't remember an election campaign more bitter and vitriolic. The personal attacks against all the main party leaders has been very ugly. It has been excrutiating. Glad when it's over.
 

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
pb-120102-popcorn-6p-jpg.2564530



Just ordered this popcorn for the social media meltdown on Friday.....
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
In multiple schools I’ve worked in children using that term get done for racism. Each to their own?
It depends doesn't it on whether they are referring to the person or the clothing. Let's face it, it's all a bit unhealthy and it depends on the age or primary or secondary. I use to get called a wanker for wearing a coat with toggles on at secondary school. Now I'm a wanker in my own right.
The point is , as an adult , when I see someone wearing a Parker coat with a hood up it looks less like a letterbox than some types of headgear worn by some women. That's a fact.
If I think any woman would be offended by referring to her head clothing as a letterbox then perhaps I should keep it to myself, in the same way a person very conscious of their weight wouldn't really want to be called fat. Beyond that, some on this thread go completely mad because they've got far too much time on their hands.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Go on then, I'm listening. Explain how dangerous Corbyn would be for our economy and national security.

because he would collude with a foreign government and leak information to a foreign multi national.
Oh, sorry, that was two of the current cabinet.
 

tommydazzle

Well-Known Member
Does anyone ever have their views changed because of a campaign? It all seems a waste of time to me all this door knocking and kissing babies. Most people's views are pretty entrenched (this forum confirms that) so are they really changed because they see a Tory leader visit a hospital or a Labour leader visit a factory? The debates have just revealed how politicians dare not have principles and have been coached to bang out a party line whenever they are questioned. If anything, we get to see how incompetent most of them are so it's self-defeating and diminishes them in the eyes of the electorate.

I read somewhere that around a fifth of the electorate have already voted by post so none of this recent stuff has any influence for them. (I sent off my postal vote a week ago). Seems a tremendous amount of time and money is spent on this and if instead they just all agreed to publish their manifestos for us to examine and perhaps gone over forensically by independent experts to report on, we would still be in the same terrible position but at least without the circus of lies and waste of millions.
 

SkyBlueCharlie9

Well-Known Member
Hmmm...easy to say though, ferret. Have you ever had a 4 year old? I am sure the family didn't think it was flu when they took him in and the hospital wouldn't have known it was flu at first either. Yup, it was proved to be flu in the end and not critical, but that sort of deflects from point doesn't it.

And if it's a non story, why are the hospital extremely sorry

What is happening in our A&E departments right now is totally unacceptable and I have first hand experience
Flu in young children can be life threatening. Anyway it's alright in Tory heads.... as the child had a chair... !!!! Only right wing nasty crackpots try to spin this story against the family!
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Flu in young children can be life threatening. Anyway it's alright in Tory heads.... as the child had a chair... !!!! Only right wing nasty crackpots try to spin this story against the family!
Of course. With a 4 year old you take no chances. They believed it might be pneumonia and that is most definitely life threatening. I guess it depends on which way you look at it.

Did the mum decide to make a bed for her son on the floor, as she felt that was the best thing to do, and then thought she would take a photo to show the chaos in the A&E there, or did she look for a photo opportunity.

I am not sure we can simply say it was staged without having the full facts. Did she have other children in tow too?

It's hard for a child to sleep on a chair and you cannot carry a 4 year old in your arms for hours on end.

I haven't made any final conclusion on the event itself, but seems everyone is apologising and saying it was unacceptable.

I did hear some people on 5Live this morning getting very, very angry that this woman made a political statement as some kind of photo opportunity.
 

ccfc92

Well-Known Member
Flu in young children can be life threatening. Anyway it's alright in Tory heads.... as the child had a chair... !!!! Only right wing nasty crackpots try to spin this story against the family!

I am not saying it's true, but apparently after the picture was taken, he was then picked back up and put back on a trolley bed?
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Totally and utterly untrue.

I expect fudge and deflection from politicians in such circumstances and that is what usually happens. Here, we have apologies. If there is nothing to apologise for, why apologise.

The government hasn't apologised for other stuff when it has been pointed out to them.
That isn't what you are banging on about though is it.

The economy. Labour got hit by a worldwide recession. Agreed. The Tories took over a couple of years later. Everything to you since the day they took over is their fault. Debt shooting up when they took over was their fault. The speeding up of privatisation done by Labour has caused billions of pounds of the NHS budget to go elsewhere than treating patients. But all the fault of the Tories. Quotes from other people you always agree with? Older generations had it better. They had better pensions for one. But that was the fault of Labour. You personally are suffering because of it like everyone else is. But hey ho. Doesn't matter. We don't trust the Tories but we trust Labour. Only the top 5% earners will pay more tax under Labour....not true is it. Corbyn had to admit that was false information. But don't worry. It is only the Tories that give false information.

They are as bad as each other. They will say what they need to get more votes.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
It depends doesn't it on whether they are referring to the person or the clothing. Let's face it, it's all a bit unhealthy and it depends on the age or primary or secondary. I use to get called a wanker for wearing a coat with toggles on at secondary school. Now I'm a wanker in my own right.
The point is , as an adult , when I see someone wearing a Parker coat with a hood up it looks less like a letterbox than some types of headgear worn by some women. That's a fact.
If I think any woman would be offended by referring to her head clothing as a letterbox then perhaps I should keep it to myself, in the same way a person very conscious of their weight wouldn't really want to be called fat. Beyond that, some on this thread go completely mad because they've got far too much time on their hands.

How about calling them burglars?
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
Yeah, apparently so. He was in with flu, so wasn't given a bed because, well, he had flu. He was placed on the floor on some coats by his parents who then sent images to the Mirror. Was discharged soon after. Using your sick child as a political prop, that's pretty low.
Revisited this, ferret, because you are a poster I always have a lot of respect for, bit the simple fact seems to be that this boy was taken in with suspected pneumonia, so to say 'he was in with flu and wasn't given a bed because, well he had flu', cheapens the incident.

Do you know for certain he was used as a political prop? That would indeed be a pretty low thing to do, but from what I can see, a lot of this accusatory stuff has apparently come from internet trolls.
 

bezzer

Well-Known Member
If you take your pot out you will get over £150k tax free. And if you can run the rest of it at a 3% profit that is over 12k a year. The 150k at 10k a year and your profit gives you 27k a year. You then still have nearly half a million to play with. Then when the state pension kicks in it would give you 35k a year. You wouldn't be liable for income tax until you get the state pension. And no NI contributions to pay. So would leave you about 33k. And as you shouldn't need that much your lump sum shouldn't run out.

Your tax free will be much higher taking it out.

I am on something on the same lines. Enough to retire at 55. You just need to make sure you keep the risk spread and low

Yes, there's a lot to consider. I also have a nice amount in a Stakeholder pension and my current company pension. I'm swaying towards taking the DB pension cash, investing in a SIPP and semi retiring next year. Like you. its a nice position to be in.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Yes, there's a lot to consider. I also have a nice amount in a Stakeholder pension and my current company pension. I'm swaying towards taking the DB pension cash, investing in a SIPP and semi retiring next year. Like you. its a nice position to be in.
Just remember if you take anything out that isn't your tax free 25% it counts as income. So you could work part time and get taxed on it all depending how much you take out each year. And you also don't have to take out any or all of your 25% in one go. You could take out 10% and another 15% at a later date. Or leave it all in and only 75% of what you take out is taxable. The problem with that is the fees you will most probably pay. Half a % on 150k is £750 a year. Doesn't sound a lot. But 10 years is 7.5k.
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Maybe they couldn't get a GP appointment. These days its not just a case of phoning up and getting a same day appointment.

My GP allows you to book online so I've just checked, at a surgery with 7 GPs based across 2 sites there are 2 appointments available for the rest of the year, both next Tuesday.

What would you do if you were a parent with a sick child and you couldn't get in to see a GP, just keep the kid at home and hope for the best? At what point is it acceptable to seek treatment?

I accept that parents worry. Have been there & done that on a health issue I felt was being trivialise. So to be clear - I am in no way judging said parents in this case. What we do know is that many cases arriving in A&E are in effect wasting the valuable resource & should have gone elsewhere.

To answer your question though, I would take said child to said GP surgery & demand to be seen. They would NEVER ignore a child's health & risk being reported. A GP or Nurse would eventually see the child.

OR most areas (& if they are in Leeds I'd be most surprised were there none) now have same day access services which patients should be directed toward. Or there are Pharmacists...who you can then quote as telling you you need to see a GP.

I am lucky enough to never have suffered from what I would call flu as I have had it describred, but none of the symptoms I have seen & heard of as flu related would constitute something I would think warrants ACCIDENT or EMERGENCY tbh.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Maybe the kid needed to fucking lie down. A&E only having chairs available is equally as bad a story FFS.
That is very true.

It is also true to say that every government of whatever party seems to have these kind of stories...& they are always politicised. Their own fault really I guess, they just should stop meddling!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top