Thanks Charlotte, excellent article.
‘Anne McCusker, mum of SDLP man Paul McCusker, has been selling cigarettes and other goods from the back of the vehicle at her Ardoyne home.
Last month councillor McCusker called for a financial hardship package for shopkeepers in the Ardoyne area he represents.
When confronted about her unregistered tobacconist store, Mrs McCusker held her hands up and admitted it could be embarrassing for her politician son.
She faces a £5,000 fine if convicted of not registering as a tobacco retailer with Belfast City Council.
"It could be embarrassing for him," she told the Sunday Life.
"If that's the case I'll just close."’
Copied from the Belfast Telegraph
@ Ivan Benett | Salaried GP14 Sep 2019 12:15pm
‘Why use Statins for prevention of Cardiovascular Disease?’
‘I know the rigour and impartiality that is applied by NICE’
Most of us are familiar with tedious, nonsensical proclamations from NICE!
Six weeks wait to see a GP will seem like nothing if the H3N2 flu arrives from Australia. But you will be able to get a walk-in appointment with the NO WIN, NO FEE solicitor on the high street.
Another typical FU by the magnificent micromanaging morons.
You could start by getting definitions of medical care to make common sense.
PRIMARY CARE should be about how a person takes care of themselves, family members/friends/neighbors etc
SECONDARY CARE should encompass services of GP, HV, CPN, etc. and
TERTIARY CARE is going to hospital etc
Apologies for the pedantry but clarity of thought does matter
‘Just remember a fine is a tax for doing bad. A tax is a fine for doing good.! ‘
Great line! Can I steal it?
‘Springs to mind’
‘Re-arranging the deckchairs’
‘Robbing Peter to pay Paul’
(and Peter’s cupboard is bare - it has already been burgled)
The usual BS from PHE
(one of many agencies that dabble in healthcare provision and is only relevant for the irritation it causes)
Azeem Majeed | GP Partner/Principal04 Sep 2019 5:17pm
‘Many congratulations Nikki.’
Shaba Nabi | Salaried GP04 Sep 2019 6:05pm
‘This is fantastic news for general practice.’
No point even praying when the ‘top doctors’ make commentary like this. Just RLE, ‘you know your worth it’.
That docbot pictured at the top of the article is either naked or wearing "The Emperor's New Clothes". Is that allowed? and don’t get me started on the vinyled finger.
I apologise if I have offended your sensibilities, my comments were not personal.
I was unaware that you had written a’recent BJGP editorial’.
I note that your average user rating for this article remains at ONE (maybe time for some reflection?).
Dear Nick, I gave you one as well (not that one!), but only because there is no option to give a minus for a cowardly RCGP type post.
Back to the old triad: Quality, Quick and Affordable.
You can’t have all three (and sometimes can only have one).
So we have been given NHS24/111, which is CHEAP but of UNRELIABLE PROMPTNESS and is UNIVERSALLY SHIT.
‘and another who has carried out research that has discovered a plant-based solution to several common ailments seen in general practice.’
‘Eat your greens’ - CVD etc
Re: FRED FLINSTONE | Hospital Doctor22 Aug 2019 5:56pm
‘Being very busy and understaffed is no defence when an adverse outcome occurs’
One simply shouldn’t do activities that there is no defence to.
HOW SIMPLE IS THAT???
In many cases, drugs which cost pounds in Britain are available for just pennies in India, where many of them are made, a study found.
I.e. Tamoxifen - one of the most common treatments for breast cancer - saw its price rise in the UK over the last few years from 10 pence per tablet to £1.21 - a rise of 1,100 per cent. The drug costs just 2 pence per pill in India.
Lots of medications are more affordable in India (and lots of food). Maybe we should just renegotiate the ‘Olde Empire’?
In fact, the UK does have laws that protect against self-incrimination. In other common law jurisdictions, they vary according to local law.
Privilege against self-incrimination, under common law and section 14(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, a party may claim privilege against self-incrimination if compelled to disclose information that would tend to expose them to criminal proceedings for an offence or the recovery of a penalty. The risk of incrimination must be real and not remote or insubstantial.
The privilege against self-incrimination exempts a person from being compelled to answer a question when called as a witness, produce documents or provide information which might incriminate him in criminal proceedings and/or expose him to a penalty in England and Wales. It is based on common law privilege (Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (in administrative receivership) v Clough  EWCA Civ 1509) and section 14(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 (the CEA 1968).
In fact, in a civil case, where a defendant can show that there is a real risk of serious prejudice which may lead to injustice, the civil court has the jurisdiction to stay the civil proceedings until the related criminal proceedings have been concluded (Jefferson Limited v Bhetcha  1 WLR).