trousers

Cock 0-1 Sanchez

Great effort by Redmond!

Hi - the club have a transfer request form, here: http://r1.surveysandforms.com/e92hkl29-1b2avm65 You need to submit this before 14th May. The club should then contact you between 14th - 20th May if your preferred location becomes available Cheers

Might be time to get your hearing checked out...

A tad pointless, and arguably unworthy of a thread of its own (especially with a double-negative in the thread title) but, hey, it's a nice balmy Wednesday afternoon here in London town, so here goes nothing.... https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/may/10/premier-league-teams-ineptitude-index-hull-city The Premier League teams’ ineptitude index 2016-17 Hull City 82 Sunderland 79 West Ham 77 Bournemouth 72 Stoke City 69 Burnley 68 Leicester City 65 Middlesbrough 64 Swansea City 61 Watford 57 Crystal Palace 55 Liverpool 55 West Bromwich Albion 45 Everton 44 Manchester City 37 Southampton 35 Manchester United 33 Tottenham Hotspur 31 Arsenal 30 Chelsea 24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxCPcbstVJc&feature=youtu.be

I'm not sure where you've got the impression from that I think it's "all broken and crap". I think it's a very good service despite the pressures. I'm simply reflecting the view of people who I know that work in the NHS who constantly tell me that it could be even better if the inefficiencies were eliminated. Holding the view that it could be improved through efficiency drives and that more cash could be put into the system aren't mutually exclusive. So, just to clarify my view of the NHS: 1) it is a wonderful service despite the pressures it faces 2) it could do with being more efficient (3) it could do with more investment (and that investment will be better spent if (2) is also addressed)

Agree, but I would say it's better to pour additional money into a system that's been fixed first. Dodgy analogy alert... If you've got a leaky bucket, it's better to mend the bucket before pouring more water into it. Or something...

I wonder if VvD was there, or whether he was "unfortunately double booked" again...?

One problem with providing a "free" service is that human nature kicks in and it gets abused. (e.g. people not turning up for appointments). A while back, I seem to recall reading about a trial that was run in a country (can't remember where... Australia maybe? Not sure) whereby they issued a 'dummy' invoice to everyone that used any national healthcare service and the result was that there was a significant decline in the amount of people misusing/abusing the service when they knew how much each consultation or procedure cost. I still maintain its not just about the absolute level of funding, it's more about how smart you are with the funds in the first place.

If anyone ever needed any evidence of how amateur and tinpot that club is, exhibit A right there m'lud.

Are the people that lost 96 pence in the pound to allow Pompey to be in the position they are now "excited" too? Or has Eisner pledged to do the honourable thing and reimburse all the creditors that lost out?

I sometimes wonder how much of that is due to local (mis)management and how much is due to lack of funding from central. My local hospital (Frimley Park) is, like all hospitals, under increasing 'supply and demand' pressures but it is often held up as a beacon for other hospitals to aspire to.... http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/frimley-health-trust-ceo-tops-12639280 http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2014-09-26/frimley-park-hospital-praised-as-outstanding/ https://www.fhft.nhs.uk/news/rated-highly-by-our-staff/ http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/frimley-park-hospitals-new-emergency-12954450

I don't think anyone disagrees that 'healthcare' in the UK requires additional investment. It's more about 'how' that investment is sourced and utilised. I'm not qualified enough to know what the best solution is, but I can't help thinking we need a different model to the one we've largely had since the NHS's inception last century.

I can't argue with that as I don't have the stats. All I know is that there is a hell of a lot of inefficiency (aka money not spent efficiently) in the NHS (based on the feedback I get from my relatives that work there). Maybe private hospitals cost more (per procedure) because they are better rather than because they are more inefficient? I'm just not convinced throwing endless cash at the NHS is the utopian solution some hold it up to be

Spooky. Was just about to post the same. We need a 'progressive' solution to finance the NHS. IMO the demand has got too big for a service to be fully funded out of taxation (notwithstanding that taxes are never spent efficiently by cumbersome public services). IMO we need a hybrid system that is "free at the point of service" for people that can't afford otherwise, and a supplementary insurance based scheme for those than can afford it. But, as LD says, this'll never happen because all parties avoid tackling the sacred cow that is the NHS. And, they are probably right as it would be a sure fire election loser given the short-sightedness​ of Joe Public.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/15266000.Bertrand_talks_Puel__rift__and_Saints_future/

Incorrect. There aren't any trolls on this forum. Our eagle-eyed mods would have swooped into action by now if there were.

He knows, but will be delighted that he got a bite

Penalty to City 4-2 Saints relegated...

3-2 City

2-2