Written by Allyson Pollock and David Price:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/allyson-pollock-david-price/abolition-of-nhs-that%E2%80%99s-what-is-happening-0

"The scene is set for a re-run of the transfer in the 1990s of long-term care responsibilities to councils when funding was privatized through means testing and charges. Worse: it’s returning to pre-1948.

Not everyone will be covered for all services in the new “NHS”. The government has gone to great lengths to ensure that the newly created commissioners of NHS services (the so-called clinical commissioning groups, CCGs) do not have responsibility for comprehensive care for all residents in one geographical area."

Click on the briefings to read more.

VM

But VM - if according to you the Health Act has been repealed the NHS doesn't exist! So how can it be abolished? If the current government did in fact abolish it then Labour would only need to promise it's instant reinstatement to guarantee themselves a landslide victory in the next general election! Afterall it's not a free service and the electorate will surely demand that they receive that for which they have paid through a lifetime of punitive taxation! Steve

Hello Steve

But the Labour party would not be allowed to do it because its a accepted policy of the state corporate and no party can oppose them. Cast your mind back Steve to those famous promises that Blair made about "" no one ever again being forced to sell their homes to pay for care again"". That promise was a total lie, he never had any intention of honouring his word becuase he knew what the personal cost to him would have been.

Consider Thatcher the most powerful figure in our political history until she went to far and thought she could take on the real power-lords. She attended just one Bildenburg meeting and when asked if she would ceed to European and their demands and she refused ( about the only thing I could agree with her on ) and the outcome she was never asked again to attend.

Kind regards Ian

Esquires wrote:But VM - if according to you the Health Act has been repealed the NHS doesn't exist! So how can it be abolished? If the current government did in fact abolish it then Labour would only need to promise it's instant reinstatement to guarantee themselves a landslide victory in the next general election! Afterall it's not a free service and the electorate will surely demand that they receive that for which they have paid through a lifetime of punitive taxation! Steve

Steve, I take it that you’re being facetious there, but I’ll reply regardless.

It’s not “according to me” that the 1946 NHS Act has been repealed – it’s according to the evidence on the Statute book. I didn’t write that statute book any more than you did!

The fact that the 1946 Act was repealed does not mean that the NHS doesn’t still exist, which it does of course.

Read the briefing notes in the link. They're written by people who really are experts in the changes that will most likely be made, if this Bill is passed. Not all at once – no government is that stupid. (Well, this one might be!!) As always, the devil is in the detail - and that's what the briefing notes explain - in detail!!

You only have to remember what a certain Tory government did to the railways in the 1990s - with the arrival of the Railways Act 1993 - to realise that once ‘knitted’ according to their pattern, it’ll be impossible to un-knit it all. They dropped more than a stitch with that Act.

So by the time they've been and gone and done it with this latest Bill, any debate about the repeal of previous NHS Acts will be academic but irrelevant.

VM

We have a problem, don’t we?

Steve and others says the 1946 Act has not been repealed. VM and others say it has been repealed. There is not going to be agreement on this.
In fact, ISTM that it makes little difference whether it is repealed or not – we all agree that subsequent Acts embody the core principles. Hugh James, in Ian’s very helpful post at the start of another thread, rely on Coughlan and fighting the NHS on their stated policies, a practice that appears to work: the 1946 Act does not directly come into it.

BUT advice from Steve and others, based on their belief that the Act still exists, is misleading – better to rely on the subsequent Acts – and that’s the problem as I see it. Every time Steve and others post that the 1946 Act is the current law, someone has to correct this.

It would go some way to satisfying those of us on the other side if, Steve, you could do what I thought you were going to do – change the wording at the head of the site to say something like ‘since the 1946 National Health Service Act’. Can you do this, please?

Victoria Meldrew wrote:

Esquires wrote:But VM - if according to you the Health Act has been repealed the NHS doesn't exist! So how can it be abolished? If the current government did in fact abolish it then Labour would only need to promise it's instant reinstatement to guarantee themselves a landslide victory in the next general election! Afterall it's not a free service and the electorate will surely demand that they receive that for which they have paid through a lifetime of punitive taxation! Steve

Steve, I take it that you’re being facetious there, but I’ll reply regardless.

It’s not “according to me” that the 1946 NHS Act has been repealed – it’s according to the evidence on the Statute book. I didn’t write that statute book any more than you did!

The fact that the 1946 Act was repealed does not mean that the NHS doesn’t still exist, which it does of course.

Read the briefing notes in the link. They're written by people who really are experts in the changes that will most likely be made, if this Bill is passed. Not all at once – no government is that stupid. (Well, this one might be!!) As always, the devil is in the detail - and that's what the briefing notes explain - in detail!!

You only have to remember what a certain Tory government did to the railways in the 1990s - with the arrival of the Railways Act 1993 - to realise that once ‘knitted’ according to their pattern, it’ll be impossible to un-knit it all. They dropped more than a stitch with that Act.

So by the time they've been and gone and done it with this latest Bill, any debate about the repeal of previous NHS Acts will be academic but irrelevant.

VM

One of your sources for this kind of thing is Wikipedia, which anyone can write up, including vested interests so this "source" has always to be checked out, no matter what information it gives.

Need I say more ( by the way, have you had your dunked biscuit yet, or has your carer forgotten today? I watched the news yesterday, and it said that people of your great age are being TERRIBLY neglected. Shame ! )

maryjo wrote:We have a problem, don’t we?

Steve and others says the 1946 Act has not been repealed. VM and others say it has been repealed. There is not going to be agreement on this.
In fact, ISTM that it makes little difference whether it is repealed or not – we all agree that subsequent Acts embody the core principles. Hugh James, in Ian’s very helpful post at the start of another thread, rely on Coughlan and fighting the NHS on their stated policies, a practice that appears to work: the 1946 Act does not directly come into it.

BUT advice from Steve and others, based on their belief that the Act still exists, is misleading – better to rely on the subsequent Acts – and that’s the problem as I see it. Every time Steve and others post that the 1946 Act is the current law, someone has to correct this.

It would go some way to satisfying those of us on the other side if, Steve, you could do what I thought you were going to do – change the wording at the head of the site to say something like ‘since the 1946 National Health Service Act’. Can you do this, please?

No-one is "correcting" this as you put it, except this pair Al-ian and VM, who I would label as HADs - which stands for Heath Act Deniers.

They are doing more damage by their eccentric views then all the PCTs and SHAs put together. As I keep saying, look at the top of this forum and what it states. There can be no error in any way what this site is about, yet this pair keep rabbitting against it. VM raves and rants on about the class action, which is also making a challenge to keep the Health Service in its own way.

AND this support of the 1946 Act has been the mainstay of this site and its predecessor , The pair up above are highly opinionated Johnny-Come-Latelys.

And again I say, if you do not believe the principles of this site, or cannot stomach them in any way, then go.

I have just responded to this by PM. If others have the inclination, may I suggest they do the same to avoid giving this undue attention.

So much for my conciliatory and constructive post. Foiled again (by FM)!

FinnMickey wrote:

One of your sources for this kind of thing is Wikipedia, which anyone can write up, including vested interests so this "source" has always to be checked out, no matter what information it gives.

Need I say more ( by the way, have you had your dunked biscuit yet, or has your carer forgotten today? I watched the news yesterday, and it said that people of your great age are being TERRIBLY neglected. Shame ! )

FM, for information: I have never relied on Wikipedia for 'this kind of thing'. Not once - not ever - therefore NEVER.

I am well aware of the origins and intentions of Wikipedia, and the way in which any Tom-Dick-or-Harry can add/amend anything on Wikipedia. Why don't you try it - and see whether you can reverse the course of history? It will give you a genuine challenge, and your energies would then not be wasted on your boring denunciation of truth and fact.

However, in this instance Wikipedia has the correct information: the 1946 Act was repealed - but I have never cited Wikipedia as my source. I've only cited the Statute Book - even you, FM, can't deny that one! (But you'll no doubt spend hours trying to do so. ) So why don't you go and check out the information you've found in Wikipedia - but make sure you check the Legislation in place in this country.

There's no need to be abusive, FM. I wrote recently on an earlier thread that you were a 'nasty piece of work'.

I was wrong.

You are in fact a 'very nasty piece of work' who finds it amusing to be abusive.

I'm sure the great majority of people reading your abuse will be astonished by the way you mock the very generation that allowed you to breathe air; by the way you find it entertaining to take the "Mickey" out of people who might live in care homes and who might need the very support that this particular forum is purporting to demand as a right for them. I've never met anyone on this forum who has posted such vile nonsense about the very generation we are all here fighting for - only you.

If anyone is denying anything, it is you - you are denying the truth. The banner at the top of this site was written before Steve - or you - became aware of the fact that the 1946 NHS Act has been repealed. Only Steve can do as he once suggested, and as Maryjo has reminded.

Your main problem seems to be that you don't actually understand that an Act that has been repealed can still be cited as a fact of historical importance and significance. I have not once denied that. But if you are quoting and relying on an Act in force today, you need to rely on the appropriate Act of today. It is the current Statute Book that will explain that to you. But, of course, if you were to read up on the legislation, you would need to accept that you are wrong - and pigs will fly before you are willing to do that, I would guess.

VM

PS. Maryjo - it's a waste of time. FM will never accept reality. He would far prefer to continue to be abusive rather than accept the truth.

Sillysally - I'm afraid I have no wish to get involved in PMs with FM. That would be an even greater waste of time. Far better to deflect any abuse he chooses to throw out - he will only make himself look ridiculous, and he will degrade the forum. If Steve wishes to sanction and approve the kind of abuse that FM churns out, that is all the more reason why this should be openly presented and not hidden behind the PM system. But thanks for the thought.

Judge: Poor boy - poor boy- blind. Put him on a chair so that the jury can see him'
[b]F E:[/b] 'Perhaps your Honour would like to have the boy passed round the jury box'
Judge: 'That is a most improper remark'
F.E: ' It was provoked by a most improper suggestion'
Judge: Mr Smith have you ever heard of a saying by Bacon- the great Bacon - that youth and discretion are ill-wedded companions'
F.E: Yes I have. And have you ever heard of a saying by Bacon - the great Bacon - that a much talking Judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal?'
Judge: 'You are extremely offensive , young man'
F.E: As a matter of fact we both are, and the only diffenece btewwn us is that I am trying to be, and you can't help it'.

F.E.Smith

I was wondering what you were all up to while I was eating lunch today....browsed the book shop and bought a book titled The Lawyer's Quotation Book...the 1948 National Health Act is part of our subconcious at the moment I think...I hope you enjoy the quote....it is meant to raise a smile...

Thank you VM for the above link p1. "a two-pronged approach, public health services are transferred from the NHS to local authorities with the functions of both so poorly defined as to bring utter confusion to patients’ and citizens’ rights. The scene is set for a re-run of the transfer in the 1990s of long-term care responsibilities to councils when funding was privatized through means testing and charges. Worse: it’s returning to pre-1948."
"Patient choice is the great con. Patients won’t choose. They will be chosen on the basis of their risk profile. Many of the health care companies now active in the UK manage financial risk by placing time limits on care, introducing cost deductibles, copayments and restrictions on the number of GP visits, hospitals visits, operations. All are commonplace in private health insurance. They are the spectre of what is to come if the Health and Social Care Bill is passed."

We have all got a tough fight on our hands in more ways than one.....

Victoria Meldrew wrote:

FinnMickey wrote:

One of your sources for this kind of thing is Wikipedia, which anyone can write up, including vested interests so this "source" has always to be checked out, no matter what information it gives.

FM, for information: I have never relied on Wikipedia for 'this kind of thing'. Not once - not ever - therefore NEVER.

I am well aware of the origins and intentions of Wikipedia, and the way in which any Tom-Dick-or-Harry can add/amend anything on Wikipedia. Why don't you try it - and see whether you can reverse the course of history? It will give you a genuine challenge, and your energies would then not be wasted on your boring denunciation of truth and fact.

However, in this instance Wikipedia has the correct information: the 1946 Act was repealed - but I have never cited Wikipedia as my source.

V.

" I have NEVER relied on Wikipedia for 'this kind of thing" you write. AND THEN you say "in this instance Wikipedia has the correct information"

M'lud, I rest my case.

FM, you have yet again failed to read the full content of that which you are attempting to destroy.

Will you never learn to read the full content of everything you try so feebly to destroy, and should you not try to understand the significance of each and every word used?

You failed to read the word "However", which means 'nevertheless' or 'in spite of' or 'notwithstanding' ...

.... so your ignorance is letting you down, disappointing you, destroying your own case. You need the help of a lawyer. I can recommend one, if you can face it - or even if they could put up with you again.

If you are claiming to understand legislation, you really need to read the dictionary - from A to Z.

So your case has failed because your defence is flawed and fatally flawed.

VM

The aim of forensic oratory is to teach, to delight, to move.........
CICERO

Hello Maryjo and VM

You only need to take the full stop out of the banner forum heading and replace it with:
AND ALL SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACTS. That would be accepted in any court in this land. Problem sorted. That would stop an opposing solicitor or barrister from getting your submission rejected by the judge or seriously compromising your case.

In a courtroom just one word can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Very kind regards Ian

ian wrote:
Hello Maryjo and VM

You only need to take the full stop out of the banner forum heading and replace it with:
AND ALL SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACTS. That would be accepted in any court in this land. Problem sorted. That would stop an opposing solicitor or barrister from getting your submission rejected by the judge or seriously compromising your case.

In a courtroom just one word can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Very kind regards Ian

Thanks Ian.

STEVE, I'd settle for that and perhaps it will get the Forum back on track. Please action!

That seems like a good and constructive suggestion from Ian.

ian wrote:
Hello Maryjo and VM

You only need to take the full stop out of the banner forum heading and replace it with:
AND ALL SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACTS. That would be accepted in any court in this land. Problem sorted. That would stop an opposing solicitor or barrister from getting your submission rejected by the judge or seriously compromising your case.

In a courtroom just one word can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Very kind regards Ian

Once again, I fail to see why the name of this website should be changed for the sake of small minority with a lot of time on their hands. It has been like this for many years, and most who have come here accept what it says, and its aim, and up to now, there has been no trouble over that.

People who have only been here for five minutes should stay silent until they have learnt a few things ( and by the way, have you added lawyer to your far ranging "talents?)

And again, as plainly this appears to be facing great difficulties in getting across, if ANYONE in any way does not like the rules, the aims, the banner, the leadership etc etc, of this site, then there is a simple and logical solution.

PUSH OFF. That is not being rude, it is being obvious, and form your own website. I feel sure that you will attract a large number of intelligent followers.

MickeyFinn,

Based on what you have manged to contribute below to an otherwise rational discussion, there is only one word left in the NEW dictionary to describe you:

PLONKER

So the only people who should PUSH OFF are plonkers such as you. Because the rest of us are trying to help people achieve fully funded NHS Continuing Healthcare. Unlike you - and you seem to have a different agenda altogether.

This forum has only been here for 2 years now, so you shouldn't be talking of 'many years' - you should only refer to a couple of years. (Or are you still hanging on to the past? Probably!! )

I've been here for almost as long as you have, MickeyFinn - give or take a few weeks - so I presume you are referring to Ian, who is a relative newcomer. But a newcomer with a little bit of knowledge about how things work in our world, rather than falling blindly for whatever he/she/ YOU may have come to swallow without questioning..

But, since you mentioned it, RULES ............

Since you seem to have access to the RULES of the forum, would you kindly post a link to the RULES of the forum, so that we can all bow down to your RULES ...... or PUSH OFF. By that I mean that if you can't post the RULES, then you are the one who should PUSH OFF.

I'm not being rude here (to quote your own words) but I and a few others are left wondering whether you want a forum that is not based on intelligent communication. If you only want non-intelligent forms of communication, the Street Dictionary synonym for intelligent being brainless, please say so and please also explain why you want a brainless forum to exist.

Over to you, MickeyFinn.

Or PUSH OFF, to use your own words.

Nobody achieves anything by ignoring the facts, the reality, the evidence ..... otherwise, there would be no need to present documentation to the numerous SS/LA/NHS/PCT/OMBUDSMAN systems in place. As you must have done over your own years with the NHS/PCT/SHA/IRPs/Ombudsmand etc etc etc.

Without the presentation of such documentation even Coughlan would not have come about.

Nor would Steve Squires have achieved the Ombudsman's recognition of the fact that IN HIS OWN PARTICULAR PCT, the requirements/eligibility criteria were restrictive. But that Ombudsman comment only referred the the eligibility criteria in Esquires' (Steve Squires') own PCT at the time then ............. and did not refer to any other PCT's criteria then or now. And certainly did not refer to all eligibility criteria in place............. unless you know different, MickeyFinn.

It was because of Coughlan, and because of the Ombudsman's report that the National Framework 2007 came into being.

So, if the Ombudsman was wrong then, circa 2003 to circa 2007 (the intervening years), by insisting that eligiblity criteria should be placed NATIONALLY, rather than locally ....... you will need to consult with Esquires and ask him whether he ever challenged the Ombudsman about these criteria that came into being because of his own insistence on them being created.

You are a plonker.

But, then again, if you really are considering the full content of the banner .......

Would you please explain why FREE NURSING CARE INFORMATION features in that banner?

Refer to that which is evidenced by the Coughlan Judgment, if you don't understand the above question about FREE NURSING CARE.

VM

FinnMickey wrote:

ian wrote:
Hello Maryjo and VM

You only need to take the full stop out of the banner forum heading and replace it with:
AND ALL SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACTS. That would be accepted in any court in this land. Problem sorted. That would stop an opposing solicitor or barrister from getting your submission rejected by the judge or seriously compromising your case.

In a courtroom just one word can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Very kind regards Ian

Once again, I fail to see why the name of this website should be changed for the sake of small minority with a lot of time on their hands. It has been like this for many years, and most who have come here accept what it says, and its aim, and up to now, there has been no trouble over that.

People who have only been here for five minutes should stay silent until they have learnt a few things ( and by the way, have you added lawyer to your far ranging "talents?)

And again, as plainly this appears to be facing great difficulties in getting across, if ANYONE in any way does not like the rules, the aims, the banner, the leadership etc etc, of this site, then there is a simple and logical solution.

PUSH OFF. That is not being rude, it is being obvious, and form your own website. I feel sure that you will attract a large number of intelligent followers.

FinnMickey wrote:

ian wrote:
Hello Maryjo and VM

You only need to take the full stop out of the banner forum heading and replace it with:
AND ALL SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACTS. That would be accepted in any court in this land. Problem sorted. That would stop an opposing solicitor or barrister from getting your submission rejected by the judge or seriously compromising your case.

In a courtroom just one word can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Very kind regards Ian

Once again, I fail to see why the name of this website should be changed for the sake of small minority with a lot of time on their hands. It has been like this for many years, and most who have come here accept what it says, and its aim, and up to now, there has been no trouble over that.

People who have only been here for five minutes should stay silent until they have learnt a few things ( and by the way, have you added lawyer to your far ranging "talents?)

And again, as plainly this appears to be facing great difficulties in getting across, if ANYONE in any way does not like the rules, the aims, the banner, the leadership etc etc, of this site, then there is a simple and logical solution.

PUSH OFF. That is not being rude, it is being obvious, and form your own website. I feel sure that you will attract a large number of intelligent followers.

I think it was Steve who started this ball rolling by making the suggestion (or one very similar).

Maryjo, you said

I think it was Steve who started this ball rolling by making the suggestion (or one very similar).

What was Steve's suggestion?

VM

Victoria Meldrew wrote:Maryjo, you said

I think it was Steve who started this ball rolling by making the suggestion (or one very similar).

What was Steve's suggestion?

VM

That the words at the top of the site be adjusted to include more recent Acts, I think.

VM, on reflection, I think it was in that thread that he deleted.

Say no more!! If it ain't there, you can't see it!

Thanks.

VM

Victoria Meldrew wrote:MickeyFinn,

Based on what you have manged to contribute below to an otherwise rational discussion, there is only one word left in the NEW dictionary to describe you:

PLONKER

So the only people who should PUSH OFF are plonkers such as you. Because the rest of us are trying to help people achieve fully funded NHS Continuing Healthcare. Unlike you - and you seem to have a different agenda altogether.

This forum has only been here for 2 years now, so you shouldn't be talking of 'many years' - you should only refer to a couple of years. (Or are you still hanging on to the past? Probably!! )

I've been here for almost as long as you have, MickeyFinn - give or take a few weeks - so I presume you are referring to Ian, who is a relative newcomer. But a newcomer with a little bit of knowledge about how things work in our world, rather than falling blindly for whatever he/she/ YOU may have come to swallow without questioning..

But, since you mentioned it, RULES ............

Since you seem to have access to the RULES of the forum, would you kindly post a link to the RULES of the forum, so that we can all bow down to your RULES ...... or PUSH OFF. By that I mean that if you can't post the RULES, then you are the one who should PUSH OFF.

I'm not being rude here (to quote your own words) but I and a few others are left wondering whether you want a forum that is not based on intelligent communication. If you only want non-intelligent forms of communication, the Street Dictionary synonym for intelligent being brainless, please say so and please also explain why you want a brainless forum to exist.

Over to you, MickeyFinn.

Or PUSH OFF, to use your own words.

Nobody achieves anything by ignoring the facts, the reality, the evidence ..... otherwise, there would be no need to present documentation to the numerous SS/LA/NHS/PCT/OMBUDSMAN systems in place. As you must have done over your own years with the NHS/PCT/SHA/IRPs/Ombudsmand etc etc etc.

Without the presentation of such documentation even Coughlan would not have come about.

Nor would Steve Squires have achieved the Ombudsman's recognition of the fact that IN HIS OWN PARTICULAR PCT, the requirements/eligibility criteria were restrictive. But that Ombudsman comment only referred the the eligibility criteria in Esquires' (Steve Squires') own PCT at the time then ............. and did not refer to any other PCT's criteria then or now. And certainly did not refer to all eligibility criteria in place............. unless you know different, MickeyFinn.

It was because of Coughlan, and because of the Ombudsman's report that the National Framework 2007 came into being.

So, if the Ombudsman was wrong then, circa 2003 to circa 2007 (the intervening years), by insisting that eligiblity criteria should be placed NATIONALLY, rather than locally ....... you will need to consult with Esquires and ask him whether he ever challenged the Ombudsman about these criteria that came into being because of his own insistence on them being created.

You are a plonker.

But, then again, if you really are considering the full content of the banner .......

Would you please explain why FREE NURSING CARE INFORMATION features in that banner?

Refer to that which is evidenced by the Coughlan Judgment, if you don't understand the above question about FREE NURSING CARE.

VM

FinnMickey wrote:

ian wrote:
Hello Maryjo and VM

You only need to take the full stop out of the banner forum heading and replace it with:
AND ALL SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACTS. That would be accepted in any court in this land. Problem sorted. That would stop an opposing solicitor or barrister from getting your submission rejected by the judge or seriously compromising your case.

In a courtroom just one word can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Very kind regards Ian

Once again, I fail to see why the name of this website should be changed for the sake of small minority with a lot of time on their hands. It has been like this for many years, and most who have come here accept what it says, and its aim, and up to now, there has been no trouble over that.

People who have only been here for five minutes should stay silent until they have learnt a few things ( and by the way, have you added lawyer to your far ranging "talents?)

And again, as plainly this appears to be facing great difficulties in getting across, if ANYONE in any way does not like the rules, the aims, the banner, the leadership etc etc, of this site, then there is a simple and logical solution.

PUSH OFF. That is not being rude, it is being obvious, and form your own website. I feel sure that you will attract a large number of intelligent followers.

Most of this stuff here needs a translator as it is so muddled ( but sorry, I keep forgetting your very advanced years). However, I came to this site from its beginning, AND I was involved in a site before that (call this one the "Son of...." if you like).

AND I was in contact with Esquires and the pioneers of this MOVEMENT long before even the first site was put up. You are relatively new.

And now dear, do you really go off the deep end like this with your carers ? You shouldn't get so very very very worked up like this at your age? I keep telling you again and again, and I REALLY am worried, as such rage and ranting could bring on some very nasty things, and you must look after yourself.

All this stuff in the modern world such as phones that ring and you can talk to people at a distance, and boxes that have pictures (some in colour) coming out of them, must confuse and frustrate you some time and drive you to such tempers. It is easily understood, but DO try and talk to someone about this, you really should you know.

Try going to bed half an hour earlier than your usual time - same eight o'clock. After all, I think that nearly everyone on this forum really wants you to get that telegram from Her Majesty, and it's not long now is it, and only a few week to go before the 98th, when you will get a big lovely cake, full of nice pretty candles for you to blow out (and I assume with a little help).

Finn Mickey, you keep ridiculing people and making suggestions about people leaving the Forum. I suggest that the only one who should be thinking of leaving is you.

Please take some time out for some self-examination and reflection on the MOTIVES which bring you here and the ATTITUDES that you display in your postings.

Your MOTIVES appear to include ridiculing older people, rubbishing solicitors Hugh James andf sucking-up to Steve.

Your ATTITUDES, seen in your postings, are mostly negative and unnecessarily aggressive and rude.

It seems to me that you might benefit from help with your (lack of) people skills.

Perhaps if you even went half-way to thinking about these issues the Forum would be a better place.

You are an utter disgrace, MickeyFinn.

Your ancestors would be ashamed of you.

You continue to mock those who may well be mature, aged, in care homes .... which I am not, as you well know. (You are not that stupid, surely, to believe that anyone posts their genuine personal data on any internet forum. ...... Or are you?????) You have a privileged profile on this forum, so let others know how you have managed to achieve that one!!! Or shut up.

Your spelling has improved, as has your ability to put more than one sentence together without needing assistance, so that's a good thing no doubt. You're still using capital letters far too much - which is a form of shouting to attract attention.

You've also learned how to use the word "However," .... note the comma too. That's a massive step forward for you, bearing in mind your previous posts.

It is pleasing to see that you've posted more 'normal posts' recently - but only after I suggested to you that you have never posted much by way of information, or support, or .... care before you started throwing your dummy and now your toys out of your pram.

I note that the campaign has now become a 'movement' so shall watch out for a definition of your movements. Perish the thought.

Your different 'personas' are emerging .... be they close to the House of Commons, or further afield across the distant hills and roads, via the 'network' system. Are you a lorry driver, MickeyFinn?

We're not all as daft as you would like to think we are!!

Put your toys back in the pram, MickeyFinn, and try to show that you really do care about people in need of care. And, no, before you ask I am not in need of your disgraceful and disgusting kind of care, so you can rest gently in your Mickey Mouse suit - as long as it's quilted and padded to protect you from nasties and things that go bump in the night.

Where did I step on your tootsies, MickeyFinn? Just because I informed you that the 1946 NHS Act had been repealed. Ever since then, you've been crying. So wipe away your tears and get back to a semblance of your normality.

Are you a mole? Are you working in the House of Commons? Are you trying to destroy this forum as a credible source of information and support? I think you are doing just that.

By your own personal version of CHC .... Continuing Heartless Crassness. [from Latin crassus thick, dense, gross]

VM

FinnMickey wrote:

Victoria Meldrew wrote:MickeyFinn,

Based on what you have manged to contribute below to an otherwise rational discussion, there is only one word left in the NEW dictionary to describe you:

PLONKER

So the only people who should PUSH OFF are plonkers such as you. Because the rest of us are trying to help people achieve fully funded NHS Continuing Healthcare. Unlike you - and you seem to have a different agenda altogether.

This forum has only been here for 2 years now, so you shouldn't be talking of 'many years' - you should only refer to a couple of years. (Or are you still hanging on to the past? Probably!! )

I've been here for almost as long as you have, MickeyFinn - give or take a few weeks - so I presume you are referring to Ian, who is a relative newcomer. But a newcomer with a little bit of knowledge about how things work in our world, rather than falling blindly for whatever he/she/ YOU may have come to swallow without questioning..

But, since you mentioned it, RULES ............

Since you seem to have access to the RULES of the forum, would you kindly post a link to the RULES of the forum, so that we can all bow down to your RULES ...... or PUSH OFF. By that I mean that if you can't post the RULES, then you are the one who should PUSH OFF.

I'm not being rude here (to quote your own words) but I and a few others are left wondering whether you want a forum that is not based on intelligent communication. If you only want non-intelligent forms of communication, the Street Dictionary synonym for intelligent being brainless, please say so and please also explain why you want a brainless forum to exist.

Over to you, MickeyFinn.

Or PUSH OFF, to use your own words.

Nobody achieves anything by ignoring the facts, the reality, the evidence ..... otherwise, there would be no need to present documentation to the numerous SS/LA/NHS/PCT/OMBUDSMAN systems in place. As you must have done over your own years with the NHS/PCT/SHA/IRPs/Ombudsmand etc etc etc.

Without the presentation of such documentation even Coughlan would not have come about.

Nor would Steve Squires have achieved the Ombudsman's recognition of the fact that IN HIS OWN PARTICULAR PCT, the requirements/eligibility criteria were restrictive. But that Ombudsman comment only referred the the eligibility criteria in Esquires' (Steve Squires') own PCT at the time then ............. and did not refer to any other PCT's criteria then or now. And certainly did not refer to all eligibility criteria in place............. unless you know different, MickeyFinn.

It was because of Coughlan, and because of the Ombudsman's report that the National Framework 2007 came into being.

So, if the Ombudsman was wrong then, circa 2003 to circa 2007 (the intervening years), by insisting that eligiblity criteria should be placed NATIONALLY, rather than locally ....... you will need to consult with Esquires and ask him whether he ever challenged the Ombudsman about these criteria that came into being because of his own insistence on them being created.

You are a plonker.

But, then again, if you really are considering the full content of the banner .......

Would you please explain why FREE NURSING CARE INFORMATION features in that banner?

Refer to that which is evidenced by the Coughlan Judgment, if you don't understand the above question about FREE NURSING CARE.

VM

FinnMickey wrote:

ian wrote:
Hello Maryjo and VM

You only need to take the full stop out of the banner forum heading and replace it with:
AND ALL SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ACTS. That would be accepted in any court in this land. Problem sorted. That would stop an opposing solicitor or barrister from getting your submission rejected by the judge or seriously compromising your case.

In a courtroom just one word can be the difference between victory and defeat.
Very kind regards Ian

Once again, I fail to see why the name of this website should be changed for the sake of small minority with a lot of time on their hands. It has been like this for many years, and most who have come here accept what it says, and its aim, and up to now, there has been no trouble over that.

People who have only been here for five minutes should stay silent until they have learnt a few things ( and by the way, have you added lawyer to your far ranging "talents?)

And again, as plainly this appears to be facing great difficulties in getting across, if ANYONE in any way does not like the rules, the aims, the banner, the leadership etc etc, of this site, then there is a simple and logical solution.

PUSH OFF. That is not being rude, it is being obvious, and form your own website. I feel sure that you will attract a large number of intelligent followers.

Most of this stuff here needs a translator as it is so muddled ( but sorry, I keep forgetting your very advanced years). However, I came to this site from its beginning, AND I was involved in a site before that (call this one the "Son of...." if you like).

AND I was in contact with Esquires and the pioneers of this MOVEMENT long before even the first site was put up. You are relatively new.

And now dear, do you really go off the deep end like this with your carers ? You shouldn't get so very very very worked up like this at your age? I keep telling you again and again, and I REALLY am worried, as such rage and ranting could bring on some very nasty things, and you must look after yourself.

All this stuff in the modern world such as phones that ring and you can talk to people at a distance, and boxes that have pictures (some in colour) coming out of them, must confuse and frustrate you some time and drive you to such tempers. It is easily understood, but DO try and talk to someone about this, you really should you know.

Try going to bed half an hour earlier than your usual time - same eight o'clock. After all, I think that nearly everyone on this forum really wants you to get that telegram from Her Majesty, and it's not long now is it, and only a few week to go before the 98th, when you will get a big lovely cake, full of nice pretty candles for you to blow out (and I assume with a little help).

maryjo wrote:Finn Mickey, ....
Your MOTIVES appear to include ridiculing older people, rubbishing solicitors Hugh James andf sucking-up to Steve.

Perhaps if you even went half-way to thinking about these issues the Forum would be a better place.

Maryjo, sorry but I missed your posting while I was writing mine.

I think you've summed it up perfectly.

Sucking-up to Steve sums up the vast majority of FinnMickey's posts on on this forum.


If this forum is only here for those stalwarts who have knowledge and personal experience of the 'old forum' .... that should kill this forum stone dead.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it!!!

Apologies, World, but I am beginning to wonder why I bothered. If such a numbskull as FinnMickey holds such sway without Steve intervening to demolish much of FinnMickey's rubbish and abuse ....... without posting anything that could be called 'caring and useful', the majority of those of us who are trying to be useful and caring might be left asking questions that will remain unanswered.

VM

Hello VM and everyone and that includes FM

I thought I had joined a forum to help people win back what is rightfully theres and then?

Rules, banner-headlines, tablets set in stone, movements. Why didnt you say FM that it isnt a a care forum at all?But a secret masonic lodge? When do I get the apron? Are you the Grandmaster of the lodge? I get it now FM 1946 is a masonic secret code? So you are "" in the square "?

Fun over what you read above is satire while your vile tirades against VM are gutter-sarcasm. Witless, nasty trash that is an insult to every person on this forum. Worse it is an insult aimed at the very people we are trying to help and to all elderly people. I cant see in view of the attitudes and opinions you appear to hold why you remain on this forum at all.

You didnt use to be like this did you? Not at the start. In those days you even considered a bit of DIY legal work didnt you and posted about it. Dont remember!

So who are you really? You demand answers of other people dont you. But dont answer their questions. You dont answer PMs. I have asked you 3 or 4 times about working together on the privatisation of the NHS and never got an answer.

Is your aim really the destruction of this forum? Working for someones agenda?

Are you an internet troll like ( close your eyes ladies at this point ) like that sick bastard was has just got a prison sentence for posting sick messages on Facebook for youngsters who have been sadly killed, or just a troll that likes to start arguments and break up discussion groups and web-sites.
I know all about trolls my friend, I know what they do, they select a person and constantly pick arguments and fights with that person.

Everyone check out internet troll on your google search; you will find plenty of info.

You sit behind your PC happily aiming sick abuse at people who are only trying to help and who would help you if you needed help. You think you are clever and nobody can do anything to stop you. But you are so wrong.
Do you know anything about the internet? Well try this one. This forum we are all on is something called a domain and it is owned by someone or a group ( not Steve ) and if they dont like the content they can close it down or remove the people who are causing the problem.
Your comments are highly offensive to the elderly and that constitutes Age Discrimination which is unlawful and that goes for the internet too. The body that governs age discrimination laws could take action against you, against the providers of this domain, or against the people who run this forum.
Google can likewise take off web-sites from their lists if they are constantly displaying offensive material.
Anything related to race, age, especially will be dealt with.

You are either the above, or you have serious psychological problems, or else you are something much more clever.
VM remarks about your posting getting better? Is this because you have multi-personality states, each one writing differently or that you are covering up your style of posting. I make mistakes in grammer, some words I dont use correctly. But It occurs in all my posting. While yours comes and goes.

Dont know if you people know anything about American rap artist ( and if you think about checking him out dont becuase too many of you he will be highly offensive ) Eminem. If you do, yes hes the one that uses just about every swearword in the book. But the guy is clever and interesting psychologically. His real name is Marshall Mathers but on record he totally becomes his alter-ego Slim Shady and it is this guy thats Eminem.
His alter-ego allows him to speak, act and do outragerous things that Marshall Mathers would not do or say.
Its a very skilled, clever act. But with him its different he knows he is doing it.
So are you another Slim Shady, then I wonder who the real Marshall Mathers is?

Sorry about this to everyone else I feel like the time I have spent doing this is wasted when it could have been better spent helping people on here who want help so desperately but It wouldnt be me to just let it go.

Kind regards Ian

Every week I write dozens of letters to NHS Chief Executives and their staff, primarily those concerned with the continuing care fiasco. I also have unending correspondence with Social Services Directors and their minions, including local authority legal departments. I constantly bombard all these people with the fact that every resident British citizen with an illness, disability or injury is entitled under the 1946 and all subsequent Health acts, to receive NHS care 'free at the point of need regardless of the ability to pay'. I also remind them of the wealth of case law which supports this claim including 'Coughlan', 'Booker', 'St. Helens', Grogan' etc. plus the Law Society contention that anyone so ill as to require nursing home care is the sole responsibility of the NHS. I and several other forum members have also communicated with their MP's and I have written several letters to the DoH and Andrew Lansley himself, DEMANDING that the government take immediate action to ensure compliance with the health act. I have also discussed this with my own MP,(a lawyer!)
NEVER have I received ANY response from ANYONE claiming that the health act has been repealed!! Strange when by confirming the fact they could avoid the endless procrastination and sheer garbage in trying to justify their unlawful actions! Steve.

Steve,

Please explain the relevance of your post to the above vile and vicious posts from FinnMickey that you appear to be endorsing. I have already emailed you and asked you to deal with numerous abusive posts from FinnMickey, but you have refused to reply or to deal. Why was that? You must condone and sanction FinnMickey's abuse. Sad - sad - sad!!

The fact that the 1946 NHS Act was repealed is beyond dispute. It was repealed.

I have provided you with all the appropriate links to show you that it has been repealed.

Have you never followed through on any one of those links?

Have you not yet sent a letter to Andrew Lansley asking him to confirm whether or not the 1946 Act was repealed? (I have - and I received a reply.)

If you have never asked the relevant question - you will never get the relevant answer!

So it's hardly surprising that not one of your correspondents has given you the information you now need. If you have referred to "1946 and all subsequent Acts" ........... there was no need for anyone to inform you that the 1946 Act had been repealed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They all presumed you were aware of that fact because you referred to "all subsequent Acts" ... or did you ever/never refer to 'all subsequent Acts'????

All you need to do is to send an email, or a letter. Sit back and wait for a response. By email it will reach you within a couple of weeks, at the most. By snail mail it may take a tad longer. But you've waited long enough for confirmation, so that should not pose a massive problem for you.

The repeal of the 1946 NHS Act appears to be a huge problem for you, and for your alter ego FinnMickey. Why????

We have said again and again that the basic principles of the original 1946 Act have been retained in each and every NHS Act that has come since 1946, in particular the 1977 and the 2006. The 2006 is the current one that needs connection with/by/for/on behalf of!!! (Sloppy grammar there, but I guess you will accept sloppy grammar.)

Get over it, move on, and return to the main purpose of the forum: to assist people to achieve CHC. Without the need for FinnMickey's nastiness to pervade and destroy anyone who might want assistance and help.

Forget the fact that you have not before now become aware of the repeal of the 1946 Act.

Move on. Verify it for yourself. All you need to do is to send a couple of emails. I'm sure that Derek J Cole will also be willing to confirm it to you, but I fail to understand why you should need that confirmation from him. It's easily confirmed by the available internet sources of legislation in the UK.

VM

Esquires wrote:Every week I write dozens of letters to NHS Chief Executives and their staff, primarily those concerned with the continuing care fiasco. I also have unending correspondence with Social Services Directors and their minions, including local authority legal departments. I constantly bombard all these people with the fact that every resident British citizen with an illness, disability or injury is entitled under the 1946 and all subsequent Health acts, to receive NHS care 'free at the point of need regardless of the ability to pay'. I also remind them of the wealth of case law which supports this claim including 'Coughlan', 'Booker', 'St. Helens', Grogan' etc. plus the Law Society contention that anyone so ill as to require nursing home care is the sole responsibility of the NHS. I and several other forum members have also communicated with their MP's and I have written several letters to the DoH and Andrew Lansley himself, DEMANDING that the government take immediate action to ensure compliance with the health act. I have also discussed this with my own MP,(a lawyer!)
NEVER have I received ANY response from ANYONE claiming that the health act has been repealed!! Strange when by confirming the fact they could avoid the endless procrastination and sheer garbage in trying to justify their unlawful actions! Steve.

Hello Steve

From your post it is clear that we are in agreement that every British citizen does have the right under the 1946 Health act and all subsequent health acts and I assume that it is Section 1 of all relevant acts that shows this.

How long this will be so depends on this bill of Lansley. Do you know if the attempt in the Lords was successful in restoring section 1 into this new bill?

Ill go and check it on before I have to go off line.

Kind regards Ian

Hello Steve

Doesnt look like anything has changed yet on Section 1 for the new bill. Lady Williams is fighting for government responsibility for the NHS along with David Owen. Lansley speaking to doctors seemed to be saying that the Health Secretary would still be responsible for the provision of the NHS except for emergencies, and exceptional circumstances. But I wouldnt trust him as far as I could throw him. In another account not of that particular meeting he is saying something totally different.

So dont know.

Kind regards Ian

Victoria Meldrew wrote:MickeyFinn,



This forum has only been here for 2 years now, so you shouldn't be talking of 'many years' - you should only refer to a couple of years. (Or are you still hanging on to the past? Probably!! )

I've been here for almost as long as you have, MickeyFinn - give or take a few weeks

[/quote]

So you've been here for about two years or more, and during those years you NEVER complained about what the banner said, or coming to your own conclusions that the 1946 Health Act had been repealed ( you landed on the coat-tails of Al-ian to do that) . Or for that matter didn't raise a single voice against anything else that the forum stood for - not once. You accepted EVERYTHING this forum stood for - WITHOUT QUESTION. Only the last few weeks,everyone suddenly finds that you hate just about everything it stands for. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde have got nothing on you.

During those two years, much criticism - not just from me - was aimed at solicitors Hugh James, but from you NOTHING, neither a defence or an offence WHY?

And by the way although you use a WOMAN"S moniker as your alias - anyone can use anything they like of course - you are in fact a man, aren't you? If so, I do find that a little weird.

Also you have no personal experience as far as I can uncover, of relatives, close friends etc who have been stuffed by the NHS, as most people - including myself - have on this forum. So who or what do you represent? You certainly do have a lot of opinions that's for sure, but what about the pain, emotional pressure, the frustrations, that so many have had to carry before and during their time here.

And your defence of Hugh James is also strange. Have you used these people, had ANY kind of experience of how they operate? Or had contact in any way? Most of your "advice"in this area, is at best tenth-hand and therefore can be dismissed.

You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on the web, searching for stuff that might or might not be useful - and would take ages to check out carefully - but you did grab Wikipedia as a support for your particular point of view, which says a lot.

i think you are a poseur, and one of those people who go from web to web, offering only opinions, because they lead very sad lives, and have nothing better to do - so how many other sites do you belong to, where you give out this kind of thing?

Being called a "PLONKER" by such as yourself, I will wear as a badge of courage, and frankly I can live with it. But you have questions to answer, and I advise anyone to be very very careful of what you put on this forum.

However, I also suspect you really do have serious problems - your abusive approach to reasonable queries shows this - and need to see a doctor as soon as possible.

FM if you ever do get round to some self-reflection, have a think about 'projection' - you are good at it and, for the sake of the Forum, you need to deal with it.

Hello Finn Mickey

How exactly do you know in your words ""for a fact "" that VM is a man?

Unless.......!!!!!!!!

Kind regrads Sherlock Holmes ( aka Ian ).

ian wrote:

Hello Finn Mickey

How exactly do you know in your words ""for a fact "" that VM is a man?

Unless.......!!!!!!!!

Kind regrads Sherlock Holmes ( aka Ian ).

Not been a member long, but to hopefully to save a cat fight breaking out with long and drawn out debate on this subject, as it is freely available on this forum, best to just clear it up, if it is an issue.
Before I joined I read through absolutely every thread and post from the inception of this forum, as probably most people do?don't they if they have an issue with the NHS and SS.

Whilst a user name choice is personal & private, & people can call themselves what they like, male or female gender akin or no obvious gender, for whatever purpose, as I cannot yet post links, I copy below a short extract from early threads freely available to all/anyone to view, to hopefully clear up a point and move on.
If there is an issue re gender specific this clears it up.

Hi Peter
Sorry to hear your case has been dealt with by the agencies very similar to mine with secrecy and underhanded tactics.
My case has just reached the Ombudsman and I am now waiting to hear whether or not they will investigate my case. I first complained to PCT, SS, CSCI, POVA about abuse of my dad 18 months ago, I contacted everyone I could think of expecting someone to take my complaint seriously and sort the home out even though my dad had just died, there were still another 44 people in this home to look out for, but CSCI said it had nothing to do with them but promised to drop in the home at some point in the future, this home still has 3 stars which is maddening. SS passed it to POVA and POVA were told by the PCT that they wanted to investigate which was a lie, they had no intention of doing so.
When I realised the PCT had no intention of investigating my allegations I contacted the police, this spurred on the PCT to make arrangements to investigate using their own policeman, the policeman I had contacted was taken off the case without me knowing. I contacted the HCC last August who did nothing with it until February this year not leaving themselves enough time to deal with it thoroughly being as they closed at the end of March which is why it has been passed to the Omb.
I have not heard of the LGO, is this the replacement for the HCC.
Marian.



..Victoria Meldrew View the profile Private Message See all posts .
Victoria Meldrew


Posts: 1899
Joined date: 2009-03-26
Age: 97
Location: The World

Post n°3
Re: Local Government Ombudsman
by Victoria Meldrew on 1/4/2009, 9:12 pm
Hello Marian

No, the LGO is the Local Government Ombudsman - and I can only tell you what I have gleaned so far, and because of our situation.

Initially the investigation was commissioned by the NHS/PCT/Trust/Multi-disciplinary Team lot, so it then came under the NHS as we have worked out. Investigation started - then we were told to 'shove off' , but not in those words, by the NHS/PCT/Trust/MDT who commissioned the investigation/report.

Then, suddenly the Local Authority claimed ownership of the investigation and of the report. That was the last we heard of the NHS/PCT/Trust/MDT.

So we corresponded with the LA, which supervised and was responsible for the Adult SS team (even though their SW was part of the NHS/PCT/Trust/MDT!!), and were obviously responsible for the contract with the care home providers.

Once we had exhausted the LA system, they told us to go to the LGO if we were not happy. As we see it, the LGO can only investigate the actions/responsibilities/systems etc of the local authority. BUT NOT THE NHS side of things.

So now, we are wondering whether there is another 'fast one' being pulled on us.

If the POVA was called in by the NHS/PCT/Trust/MDT lot, and they commissioned the investigation/report .... then suddenly it is all claimed by the Local Authority .... was that so that we would lose the ability to go via the HCC, or the OPHSOmbudsman???? Should we still go via the OPHSO route? Means we will yet again be back at square one, with another mountain of paperwork to work our way through, in order to submit to the OPHSO a request to investigate .... and then they may pass it back to the PCT!!!! Which is where we were 18 months ago.

Unravelling knitting, in effect. Like a cat with a ball of wool. That's how it feels, sometimes, trying to work out who is what, and when they all change their names overnight, then .... ??? Eeek!

Bernard....I am none the wiser!! I think I must be stupid!

There was some workable consensus on the status of statutes and continuing "golden" or "literal" intention and interpretation thereof around the time of the "Meg Ryan, Yes, Yes, Yes" posting I believe.

Could we;
a)Locate this - assuming I have not become delusional- or establish why it has since vanished
b)Confirm that consensus
c)Get on with the real business of this forum which (IMO) is better focussed on assisting with the present difficulties of those facing real problems and hardship trying to obtain NHS care whenever and however the sleight was perpetrated.

Hello sillysally....C)...mainly because all else escapes me

sillysally

c)Get on with the real business of this forum which (IMO) is better focussed on assisting with the present difficulties of those facing real problems and hardship trying to obtain NHS care whenever and however the sleight was perpetrated.

I agree.

The problem is that one or two people here twist everything round to make their point about not paying fees and/or relying on the 1946 Act and/or having a go at solicitors. And both of those things need challenging. One of these people can only make the point by rudely insulting other members and also the very people we are trying to help: that is very sad and unhelpful. Rational debate is good (which is why I do not agree with people being banned and threads being deleted) but this should be conducted in an adult and sensible way.

Good! Let's return to looking for solutions rather than problems.

MM no need to select a, b or c as I'm being sufficiently presumptious here to propose a process - with the only intention of moving this forward as explained in c)

The thread I referred to is FIGHTING THEIR OWN CRITERIA EXTRACTS FROM etc etc. All worth a read (IMO), but in terms of consensus post 10 onwards surely offers some hope?

In the words of Sooty. "Izzy whizzy,let's get busy".

I can't tell you all how it feels to arrive home at the end of a miserable day to find another bucketload of abuse waiting for me to deal with.

It makes ever having contributed to this forum so worthwhile.

With your permission, I'll deal with the latest abuse when I feel like doing so.

VM

Victoria Meldrew wrote:I can't tell you all how it feels to arrive home at the end of a miserable day to find another bucketload of abuse waiting for me to deal with.

It makes ever having contributed to this forum so worthwhile.

With your permission, I'll deal with the latest abuse when I feel like doing so.

VM

VM: You have my sympathy and that of most of the Forum. Do you have to deal with the personal abuse? I am certain that you have everyone behind you - we all can see what FM is doing. As I said above, I think we have to tackle misinformation when it is posted on the Forum (a kinder way of saying that would be that we have to put our point of view when we disagree!). But rudeness and ridicule? You have responded to previous muck-throwing - why waste your time and energy? And you know, don't you?, that FM always has to have the last word. Well, let him have the last word as it will stand for all time as proof of his stupidity.

You have my sympathy too VM.

S/V

Welcome home VM
MG

maryjo wrote:sillysally

c)Get on with the real business of this forum which (IMO) is better focussed on assisting with the present difficulties of those facing real problems and hardship trying to obtain NHS care whenever and however the sleight was perpetrated.

I agree.

The problem is that one or two people here twist everything round to make their point about not paying fees and/or relying on the 1946 Act and/or having a go at solicitors. And both of those things need challenging. One of these people can only make the point by rudely insulting other members and also the very people we are trying to help: that is very sad and unhelpful. Rational debate is good (which is why I do not agree with people being banned and threads being deleted) but this should be conducted in an adult and sensible way.

I quite agree with you, and I am glad that you are joining the fight to stop VM and Al-ian daily blurting out their silly unsubstantiated nonsense and talking about "Plonkers" and using similar.

Welcome aboard the SS Sensible - I was beginning to think that some here were wanting to jump into the freezing Atlantic BEFORE TItanic hit the iceberg.

FM You have the hide of a rhino. I am not proposing any such thing as you well know from the responses I have sent to your many PMs to me. Just stop it please.

sillysally wrote:FM You have the hide of a rhino. I am not proposing any such thing as you well know from the responses I have sent to your many PMs to me. Just stop it please.

Well at least I haven't got a green skin like the little men from Mars.

And by the way whoever asked this, I am very reliably informed (not by Esquires as you ask) that VM was once called Peter but changed to Victoria Meldrew. Perhaps the best explanation is that "Peter" had the operation, and it has gone slightly wrong, which explains a lot.