Cutting back

Remove all ads!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10518917.stm

The quote about not seeing the film due to the expenses scandel made me chuckle.

However, as the government is cutting back spending in all areas (education and the NHS included), is it ok for hospitals to try and make some extra cash?

It's already been found that donations to charity are dropping. Take the RNID for example (anything for a plug!): Medical staff get very little training on how to deal with Deaf/Deafend people coming in for treatment that is unrelated to their hearing loss and with the current cutbacks are getting even less training. However, as a charity we don't have the money to help out as much as we like, even though the need is now greater.

So, what's the way to go?

 

That's a bit outrageous but given that fundings may be hard to come by I wonder if this isn't meant to draw attention to the situation as well.

Things are pretty dire over here and I can't say I've heard of initiatives like that here but the French government is squandering its assets to get some cash (link) and that is probably worse than renting public buildings to shoot movies (even pornographic movies).

It's clearly distasteful but if it helps providing funds for healthcare then it's really not a bad thing. It probably wouldn't be an issue at all if the movie wasn't a pornographic movie.

I loved the bit about "these things are no longer claimable on parliamentary expenses" that is hilarious.

Still beats private jets and cigars (link).

Although to be honest I really miss the Clinton days and all the cigar jokes. Good times... :sigh:

 

"Gentlemen, I have composed a video presentation on my current views on the proposed budget cuts. Please take it to heart."

 

While I object to the porn industry as a whole, I think the issue is one that should be handled, and limited to, those responsible for running the hospital, and anyone responsible for any moral standards the hospital may hold (County General, probably no one, but Her Lady of the Sacred Heart...). The government higher-ups shouldn't be second-guessing these people, not unless there's evidence of corruption.
...
Well, you know what I mean.

 

The UK has always been run the wrong way, they hire 'experts' at ridiculous wages to help with transport or schools, who never accomplish anything, and yet the government is run by idiots, lets ask Richard Branson for some advice on how to run the country.
They cut and cut from public services however they really should be looking at themselves, there is too much government in the UK, local councils, assemblies, parliment, lords - its too much.

Why do we need a local council and an MP at the same time? there are too many MP's in this country - each claming high wages and expenses. 650 MP's at current, earning from £58.000 a year thats £37.700.000 plus their expenses.

The house of lords, is pointless, have you ever watched a televised meeting of the house of lords? most of them are falling asleep. again, these all draw expenses. 707 Lords at current.

Corruption is rife within government agencies especially when giving jobs, I have seen first hand this corruption when the senior executive officer (SEO) created jobs for his mates, 3 executive officer (EO), high payed jobs were created which are completely unnecessary but hey, the tax payer pays for his mates to have good jobs, so it doesnt matter.

Ive always said, the right person to be a politician doesnt want the job, and as long as this country is run by the wrong people, us lesser mortals are screwed.

 

They are cutting down on local councils, hasn't been officially anounced yet though. Will actually cost a hell of a lot to pull off and probably do more harm than good

There are ridiculous requirements for local councils though, such as a translator available in a selection of a preset range of languages, whether they are required or not by the local populace.