Friday, December 22, 2006

Patsy wishes you a merry Christmas

I have no idea who to credit for creating this, but thanks to Dr Evans on DNUK for posting a link for me.


Friday, December 15, 2006


Ok, I said I'd take a break, but nothing's happened yet, so here's another one for you.

NHS deficit: Approx £500 million

Amount spent on management consultants in the NHS last year: Approx £500 million

For fuck's sake Patsy, do the bloody sums.

In the Guardian...

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Last post for a bit

Lord Warner is going. Will he be missed?

Lets hope he gets a good pension for his stirling work totally bollixing up the NHS finances.

The BMA is seeking a Judicial Review regarding the legality of the governments retrospective slash-and-burn of our pensions. How the hell they think they can get away with a gross breach of contract I don't know. Idiots...

As to why this is the last post for a bit:

Mrs B will imminently be having the baby, any time in the next 1-3 weeks. So I might be a bit busy...

(I will however post an announcement when I get chance!)

So, dear readers, take care and have a good Christmas or holiday-season-of-your-choice.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Pension Cap

I don't have full details yet, but it appears that bastard Lord Warner has written to the GPC to say that he will cap GP pensions.

Here is the text from a BMA press release:

Immediate release : Thursday, 7 December 2006

BMA to challenge the imposed cap on GPs’ pensions

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA’s GPs Committee, denounced Lord
Warner’s decision to cap GP pensions as reneging on a contract agreement and
denying doctors the pensions they have already paid for.

“Most GPs are self-employed. They pay both the employers’ and the employees’
contributions into the NHS Pension Scheme. The pensions they have accrued
are in fact delayed pay resulting from a contract agreed by the government
with the profession. For Lord Warner to say they cannot have the pension
they have earned and paid for is a denial of their contractual rights. We
will be challenging his decision” said Dr Meldrum.

While family doctors have seen a substantial rise in income under the new
contract, the BMA believes the earning figures announced last week by the
government are wrong. Dr Meldrum said: “Because of a significant error, the
quoted figures are pitched at too high a level. We understand the 14%
employers’ pension contribution has been mistakenly included in the income
figures. The error means the average GP pay for 2004-05 is well below
£100,000, not the six figure income as reported. It also means the
percentage rise in pay is substantially below the 32% claimed by the
government.” Clarification of the error is being sought by the BMA.

Dr Meldrum said: “Lord Warner’s offer of a 48% rise in the pension
dynamising factor* over five years may seem superficially generous but it is
not the deal we negotiated and will seriously disadvantage GPs nearing
retirement and those who have recently retired. Those doctors retired
believing in good faith that they would receive the pensions they had earned
and paid for. Moreover, we believe the timing of the announcement is
premature, is based on estimated figures of doubtful accuracy and,
therefore, we do not accept the assertions that honouring this deal would
take money away from patient services.

“The government’s decision is a betrayal of good faith and is depriving
doctors of a pension we believe they have a legal right to receive.”

The BMA’s GPs Committee will now seek further legal advice on mounting a
challenge to Lord Warner’s announcements on capping of pensions.


This has got to be a breach of contract, never mind comp[l;etely removing any chance of healing the rift between the politicos and medics.

I will await developments with interest...

Monday, December 04, 2006

Follow up to "Spinal Privacy"

There have been further developments in the matter of Spine vs Everyone else.

Clarification has been issued to those who sent in coupons expressing a desire not to be included, here. Apparently the Department of Health "does not believe that processing their information in this way is a genuine reason linked to substantial and unwarranted distress." But I thought that distress was in the eye of the sufferer? Obviously only if the DoH thinks so to.

As a GP I'm now damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

If I do "allow" (and it doesn't look like I'll have any choice in the matter) the uploading of people's information, I could be held accountable for the breach in the confidentiality. In other words, I (as data controller for my practice) will be in Breach of the Data Protection Act and I suppose could be legitimately complained about to the GMC.

If I don't, I'll have everyone from the Health Minister (so-called) down trying to bend me over my desk...

This is also picked up today in the Torygraph.

I suspect that Tony and cronies will continue to ride roughshod over everyone, until either someone hacks the system or the opposition get of their arse and cause a fuss.

Watch this space...