Random Stuff!

[Ray Finkle]

£23 million and a number one single, not bad at all.

The article below has some details about how the money is to be spent.

Captain Tom Moore: How will coronavirus fundraising be spent?

Captain Tom Moore has raised millions for NHS charities - what will happen to the money?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[JENNYJET]

My question is why does it take a veteran approaching his centenary to have to risk his life to raise charity for the NHS? A department of state funded by taxation. There is a contingency fund sitting in the consolidated fund, i.e. UK Treasury bank account, designed to cover unforseen events such as natural disasters, War, Foot and Mouth, and will assist in paying the salaries of those furloughed, and buffet the costs of new debt issues.

I do not consider NHS as a charity, am I wrong?

 

[Coathanger16]

I wonder going forward if there'll be an appetite for an "NHS tax" that is ring fenced so the funds raised go directly into the healthcare system?

 

[JENNYJET]

Nice idea Coathanger, only problem is that any received money goes directly into the Consolidated Fund for distribution amongst all departments of State and thus not protected. A better solution might be a health insurance charge, this going to an insurance fund that generates further income but then everyone would be required to contribute and linked similar to NI Number to protect the fund for UK Citizens.

 

[JENNYJET]

Not exactly BHX Heads up hence Random. It appears another IL76 is due at SXM today estimated 10:52 local +5 bst. It was there yesterday for a medical supplies shipment and was a sight and sound to remember. FR24 shows it en route from Gander and PTZtv has a live streaming service.

 

[Coathanger16]

only problem is that any received money goes directly into the Consolidated Fund for distribution amongst all departments of State and thus not protected.

And who decides that all tax collected goes into a central "money pot"? The same people that could change that system.

Pretty certain there's other countries that fund their healthcare systems by dedicated taxes or similar.

The general consensus among the public is that the NHS is chronically short funded. I'm sure the majority would support increasing taxes but only so long as the money is ring fenced for the NHS.

(I'm not one of them - I still think there's an incredible amount of waste in the NHS and I wonder how much "extra" funds would be available if salaries were capped).

 

[JENNYJET]

I am not certain but I believe Parliament decided how the Treasury is funded and a new Finance Act follows each Budget and provisions are made therein.

My experience as a frequent patient courtesy of NHS is that it is chronically wasteful but improvements can occur if non medical staff thought about what they use in their duties whilst professional staff have to make do with inadequate material and supplies that are frequently rationed. I agree funding is due for a revamp and I think a dedicated health charge be levied on those activities and services that may lead to attendance at a medical establishment.....Alcohol, smoking, driving vehicles, amateur sports activities and gymnasium membership ( injuries sustained ) the list could be exhaustive!

 

[andrew.clarkson]

Hi there all, does anyone know who sets the landing fee charges for Birmingham Airport, is it the airport itself or is it the seven metro district councils that owns the airport land.

 

[RichL]

The people that will complain about a NHS Tax will be the same people that complain about a runway extension.

They'll complain about both but still continue to use both on a regular basis.

 

[JENNYJET]

Remember that it is a British hobby to complain, be it the weather, the wealthy, the government and more recently VAR.

The explosion of radio phone -in programmes and social media platforms simply encourages more, and journalists feed it in the hope of a story.

I went to school to learn about life and Law School to learn about how to forensically take apart a sentence or a statement and reconstruct it to advantage. Most complaints are genuine but some are flawed and these give journalists and lawyers an excuse to whip up a frenzy or earn more fees.

A complaint arises from a misunderstanding or dispute and an entire body of Law exists to deal with such issues, this being Tort Law.

And why this forum exists, long may it continue!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I went to school to learn about life and Law School to learn about how to forensically take apart a sentence or a statement and reconstruct it to advantage.

I hope that lawyers are still as precise with their sentence construction as they always have been. That's not always the case with journalists.

How often do we read something like, "John Smith was convicted of murdering his wife at Bristol Crown Court today"? Most people would assume correctly what was meant but it actually tells us that John Smith murdered his wife at Bristol Crown Court, when the true message is that he murdered his wife elsewhere but was convicted of the crime at Bristol Crown Court.

To avoid any possible ambiguity the sentence should read, "At Bristol Crown Court today John Smith was convicted of murdering his wife".

This example is a simple one for the purpose of demonstration but when something more complex or potentially unclear is intended to be conyeyed there is no place for sloppy syntax.

(I suppose I ought to add the caveat that the reference to John Smith is not intended to refer to any real person alive or dead and such a reference is purely coincidental.)

You will be more familiar with the sometimes arcane procedures (to the lay person) in courts than most of us. I sometimes wonder if the right of counsel to put leading questions to witnesses in cross-examination always serves the best interests of Justice. Often counsel is after a simple yes or no answer when it suits their case. Usually the judge will be on to that, and if he or she feels that a simple affirmative or negative response might mislead the court they will ensure that amplification of their answer is provided by the witness. Does it always happen though?

Again I'll provide a simple example to try to illustrate my point.

If I am asked whether I've stopped beating my wife and am restricted to answering yes or no, neither would be correct.

If I say yes that means I used to beat her but have now stopped. If I say no that means I still beat her. The correct answer would be that I've never beaten her.

If this comes across as the ramblings of a retired teacher I will say now that I'm not a teacher and have never been one. It's far too difficult a job.

 

[Scottie Dog]

Fantastic little discussion and debate here. My partner is a retired teacher and she is always picking on erroneous writings and phrases.

TLY - your quick reply, as in the time it took to write, is so true. Thank you, and thanks to Jenny for her preceding post.

My apologies for any mistypes or other grammatical errors.

 

[JENNYJET]

Mr. Yokel has illustrated my point to perfection, words are considered to be evidence and Counsel's job is to examine such evidence and it is correct that counsel may put leading questions to a witness but it is likely to be ruled against or referred to during judge's summing up to the jury.

When a Barrister asks for a simple yes or no and gets waffle in return an intervention occurs that stops the witness and the exchange is noted by the judge, or in the case of a Magistrates bench, the Stipendiary. Sometimes such a question is designed to unsettle the witness if a suspicion exists
that a witness is fencing ( sword play ), or attempting to divert or mislead the court. an attempt to disrupt proceedings in this manner can lead to Contempt charges which upon conviction can carry a greater penalty than the original charge. The method is a good way to catch lying which in turn opens up the prospect of Perjury charges, it is not simply a matter of awkward lawyers and evasive witnesses but the examination of evidence in the pursuit of justice.

Then if the defendant or his/her Barrister is dissatisfied with the outcome, leave to appeal may be sought however the judge will endeavour to avoid the need for an appeal due to the extraordinary amount of additional work and the expense that comes with highly remunerated expert lawyers that stalk the appeal courts.

 

[Brum X]

Street art in Digbeth, Birmingham

 

[JENNYJET]

Would anyone wish to visit or return to UK and upon arrival are subjected to 14 days quarantine, or as some may consider, internment or house arrest?

The latest utterances from Whitehall suggest such action and makes me want to weep. Last time I checked, we are not a Communist country with armed border guards and KGB types but an open and welcoming place to visit. Health concerns noted, is this a recipe for the final destruction of the travel industry in UK?

 

[Coathanger16]

As Grant Shapps pointed out yesterday, we had some restrictions on arriving passengers before lockdown. If you'd arrived from Northern Italy you had to self-isolate at home for 2 weeks - exactly the same as what they're proposing now except for all arrivals.

With so many people now accustomed to working from home, is self-isolating at home after returning from holiday that much of a problem?

I suspect such a policy will only remain in place while passenger numbers are down. Even a passenger flow of 50% of pre-Covid levels would prove challenging to collect the data required (address, etc)

As various countries recover, it may be that the restrictions are eased and only applied to countries that are deemed a "hot spot". Or perhaps a graded system could be used:

- All arrivals have temperature scanned:

- Arriving from a non hot spot:
- If normal temp, no action required
- If elevated temp, required to self-isolate for 7 days

- Arriving from a hot spot:
- If normal temp, required to self isolate for 14 days
- If elevated temp, have a test at the airport and required to self isolate until 14 days after symptoms cease

- If test is negative:
- If travelling alone, no self isolation required
- If travelling with others and residing in the UK with them, still required to self isolate for 14 days

 

[Scottie Dog]

As somebody said on another forum this is flawed:

Arrive Heathrow, train to Euston, tube to Kings Cross, train to Newcastle, taxi home - so many opportunities to spread the 'little bugger'

 

[JENNYJET]

They will be considering converting the Heathrow animal centre to detain travellers next, or a block at Colchester garrison MCTC just to keep an eye out for such unfortunate souls that arrive into UK!

 

[hay677]

They should be detained in the Tower of London, keeping an eye on any sign of infection or tendency to seize the Throne.

 

[JENNYJET]

And where is a Thomas Cromwell when such a person is needed, possibly the best intelligence master the nation has had and someone that would take no nonsense when it comes to protecting the Kingdom!