bridge too far

See how little you know If most shift workers are paid as Mr TF is, they won't get time off in lieu or additional pay. He gets paid a shift allowance (for unsocial hours) and that's it. Nothing extra for bank holidays. The only BHs he is guaranteed to have off are Christmas / Boxing Day and New Year's day. All others form part of the shift pattern.

But, my love, I DON'T work - I retired about 6 months ago (as you would have realised if you'd actually read what I'd written instead of making assumptions). So I wasn't talking about myself at all. Mr TF MIGHT have to work, but it won't bother him. However, some people who will have to do shift work MIGHT be disappointed they won't be able to celebrate the nuptials. THAT is the point I was making.

Where did I say that I was disappointed for myself? I don't know yet whether Mr TF will be working - next year's shift patterns aren't known yet. Since I'm retired, it makes no difference to me whether it's a bank holiday or not. FFS I just said that some people would have to work.

Is this a typo? Are you referring to yourself here?

However, the important difference is that my 'it's not fair for someone angle' is out of concern for others. Dune's single track comments broadly are out of concern for himself. I'm not going to apologise for highlighting the often unthought of effects of things.

Oh for goodness sake, you silly old woman. How on earth is pointing out that some people won't be getting time off considered negative. It's neither negative or positive - it's just a fact And, silly old woman 2 - Trousers - it's not 'socialist' or wishing everyone to be miserable either. It's just a fact. And, no doubt if you were to be taken ill on that day, you'll be relieved that some people do work shifts. Grow up, the pair of you.

confetti

Not for shift workers, it isn't

goose

Shows just how much you know and understand about health treatment. The reasons new hospitals have been built are many. For example, it is more cost efficient to have doctors particularly, but staff generally, across one site rather than many for acute medicine. It's very difficult to provide safe consultant-led cover over many sites when doctors can only work 48 hours a week. Significant advances in technology require expensive machinery that is too expensive to provide in lots of hospitals and that requires specific building requirements (e.g. RF screening for MRI scanners). Also, as advances result in more and more day surgery, long-stay wards are not needed as much as they were. More step-down and chronic, rather than acute, care is needed, and this is best provided in community hospitals that are cheaper to run than large acute hospitals. Finally, it is usually cheaper to build a new facility than to maintain old, sometimes Victorian buildings, to the standards required for safe delivery of treatment. Every new hospital build project will be required to demonstrate this via a Business Case. Usually, old sites ARE sold off (in Oxford, the old listed Radcliffe Infirmary has been sold to the University) but, with the current downfall in land prices, this might not happen immediately. Yes, the projects do have to be offered for tender to Europe - that's the law. However, every project I've worked on has been won by a British consortium and the smaller, community hospitals and drop-in centres are usually built by smaller UK construction companies. The UK wins many contracts to build hospitals abroad - I know of one such project in Italy.

Dreadful spelling in that article! It's maintenance FFS!

Is there any oil in that region?

As do I - it's an extension of the action the UK took to prevent its own banks from failing.

expert

sophy

As long as we're getting more in interest payments from the Irish than it's costing us to borrow the money in the first place.......

I think you'll find our population is nearer 70 million TBH

rentokil

I think the counter-argument is two-fold. Firstly, it's reported that Ireland is the biggest recipient of exports from the UK. So if the Irish economy were to fail, it would impact on our economy. Secondly, one (or more?) of the Irish banks has been propped up by RBS and that's owned by the UK taxpayer. So if that bank/s fails, we lose out. I understand the root cause of the problem (ridiculous over-exposure to risk by property owners and banks) but what I don't understand is why the Irish decision to try to reduce the deficit in a short time and by harsh measures hasn't worked. Isn't that what's being tried in the UK?

I have him on ignore too. Unfortunately, some people will keep quoting him so I have no option to read his diatribe occasionally.

crimes

The foundations of his political views match his name - built on sand.

piece

fanny

You'll find quite a few slimy slugs on here.