lizziec: (Horrible Histories Pilot wide eyes)
I'm pondering setting up a Mental Health filter as I have a need to blather on about my latest meanderings in the field of my mental health (or lack thereof).

I am not doing this out of a need or cry for attention. I want to journal this stuff because I journal most stuff that I need to get out of my head, but I don't want to subject everyone to it if they don't want to be subjected to it...

There is no compulsion on you to read or comment on whatever I put in this filter.

Please comment (comments are screened) if you're interested in what I'll be putting there. I won't judge anyone if they don't want to be in the filter.

This entry was originally posted at http://lizziec.dreamwidth.org/426016.html. There are currently comment count unavailable comments on the original entry.
lizziec: (Horrible Histories Pilot wide eyes)
I'm pondering setting up a Mental Health filter as I have a need to blather on about my latest meanderings in the field of my mental health (or lack thereof).

I am not doing this out of a need or cry for attention. I want to journal this stuff because I journal most stuff that I need to get out of my head, but I don't want to subject everyone to it if they don't want to be subjected to it...

There is no compulsion on you to read or comment on whatever I put in this filter.

Please comment (comments are screened) if you're interested in what I'll be putting there. I won't judge anyone if they don't want to be in the filter.

This entry was originally posted at http://lizziec.dreamwidth.org/426016.html. There are currently comment count unavailable comments on the original entry.
lizziec: (Grumpy hug)
I'm pondering setting up a Mental Health filter as I have a need to blather on about my latest meanderings in the field of my mental health (or lack thereof).

I am not doing this out of a need or cry for attention. I want to journal this stuff because I journal most stuff that I need to get out of my head, but I don't want to subject everyone to it if they don't want to be subjected to it...

There is no compulsion on you to read or comment on whatever I put in this filter.

Please comment (comments are screened) if you're interested in what I'll be putting there. I won't judge anyone if they don't want to be in the filter.
lizziec: (Horrible Histories Stupid Deaths (finger)
This is what happens when I get overtired:






This entry was originally posted at http://lizziec.dreamwidth.org/422941.html. There are currently comments on the original entry.
lizziec: (Horrible Histories Stupid Deaths (finger)
This is what happens when I get overtired:






This entry was originally posted at http://lizziec.dreamwidth.org/422941.html. There are currently comments on the original entry.
lizziec: (Granny's garden bee)
This is what happens when I get overtired:




lizziec: (potterpuffs - Neville and Trevor)
Ben and I spent part of our afternoon doing this:

Harry Potter 7 ticket

My (brief) thoughts below. Spoilers will (probably) abound, so if you don't want to risk it then don't read on...

Spoilers! )

Finally, Ben is a great husband because he noticed when I started crying and gave me a tissue :) It was even clean! ;)

This entry was originally posted at http://lizziec.dreamwidth.org/422431.html. There are currently comments on the original entry.
lizziec: (potterpuffs - Neville and Trevor)
Ben and I spent part of our afternoon doing this:

Harry Potter 7 ticket

My (brief) thoughts below. Spoilers will (probably) abound, so if you don't want to risk it then don't read on...

Spoilers! )

Finally, Ben is a great husband because he noticed when I started crying and gave me a tissue :) It was even clean! ;)

This entry was originally posted at http://lizziec.dreamwidth.org/422431.html. There are currently comments on the original entry.
lizziec: (Tonks)
Ben and I spent part of our afternoon doing this:

Harry Potter 7 ticket

My (brief) thoughts below. Spoilers will (probably) abound, so if you don't want to risk it then don't read on...

Spoilers! )

Finally, Ben is a great husband because he noticed when I started crying and gave me a tissue :) It was even clean! ;)
lizziec: (carebare grumpy sleeping)
Yesterday was a much better day for a couple of reasons. First, I got out for a bit a couple of times (getting some ginger tea and some peppermint tea, and some water biscuits to help mum with her nausea and vomiting; going to Coulsdon for a little bit of a wander with mum later), and secondly I achieved some stuff. I have a feeling that those things are quite important in making me feel useful and thus better about being here.

Mum had pretty bad nausea and vomiting on Monday and during Monday night, but started to feel better on Tuesday morning, though still very tired. She cancelled some visitors who were supposed to be coming in the morning and rested and managed to eat something, and by Lunchtime felt up to attempting to go out, so we took it in several steps, which seemed to help her. Pension first, then Coulsdon itself. First to Coulsdon Hardware to get a new mop and bucket (having broken mum's mop during the great room tidy project - it was very funny, Phil looked all forlorn and said looking very sad "I could have sworn [the squeegee mechanism] would have worked before I actually broke it...), then as she was still doing ok we went on to the butchers for some sausages for tomorrow night, then as she was still doing ok we went on to the Coffee place that has sprung up in Coulsdon since I moved away/the bypass was built. A cold drink from there and some carrot cake seemed to do wonders for perking mum up, as, I'm pretty sure, did just getting out. The whole trip wiped her out, but she said she felt better for it.

While she had a sleep I went to work playing with the mop trialling the mop, before losing interest mopping the floors in the kitchen and the bathroom, and hoovering all the other floors while I was at it and had the vacuum cleaner out. I'm pretty sure that the kitchen floor is better for it. I hope so anyway, because it was hard work.

My adventures in cleaning did reveal to me some interesting personality traits in my mum's cats though. George, who is enormous and I think likes to think of himself as a bit of a hard man, is a big scaredy cat who is terrified of the vacuum cleaner. When I went near his chosen sitting place with it on he jumped up and ran away. On the other hand, Violet, who is his sister and very petite, wasn't scared of the vacuum or the mop, or the fact the kitchen floor was wet, and stayed put in the kitchen on her chosen worktop the whole time I was working in there. But curiously I found out while was taking a break that Violet is scared of 80's Power Ballads. While I was taking a break and listening to a rather eclectic mix of music, Violet was curled up next to me asleep. Every time an 80's Power Ballad came on, she'd jump up and look a bit freaked out and need some fussing before she'd relax again. It was very cute. And funny. And I'm clearly mean ;)

The rest of the afternoon and evening was spent in my little room again, catching up on various internet things, including the CBB, where I asked for prayers and thoughts to do with this situation and everyone has been overwhelmingly amazing. I can't express how touched I am with the responses, especially towards someone who is largely a lurker now and most people don't know well, but will have a go later at expressing it anyway, because they deserve to know how awesome they are.

Anyway, while I was geeking around with my laptop I became aware of being very cold. I assumed I was just being a big girly wuss, especially as this room is colder than the others because of an air vent in the wall. About half 7 I finally got around to checking on the radiator and it was stone cold at a time when I knew it should be on, and discovered that the gas had run out (I'd forgotten how much of a pain these type of meters could be). Ended up taking the gas card and the electric key down to the place in the valley that tops them up and decided while I was out I'd get a pizza for dinner because I really couldn't be bothered to cook by this time. All this meant I was back a bit later than I otherwise would have been and I walked into a gaggle (if two plus a toddler is a gaggle) of Mormons, so my pizza went cold while we all talked. As most of you know, I'm no longer a Mormon, and my time with them was often rather, um, fraught, but one of the people (Good Guy) who was there is the only one who consistently stood by my family through everything and who still talks to, and is on good terms with us. Which is the reason I didn't shoo him out of the door faster.

Mum resigned from the church finally last year sometime over the Church's interference with California's Proposition 8 last year, and has foregone contact with them (except for Good Guy) for long before that, so it was a bit of a surprise to see this man with his Home Teaching companion. They'd come to offer mum a Priesthood Blessing as apparently when Good Guy saw her on Sunday to see if there was anything he could do, he offered one and mum said she'd think about it.

Anyway, she decided that actually she didn't want one and proceeded to doze through the rest of the visit - good for her - while I chatted because after about 6 years out, and 6 years inactive before, and what they did to me and my family (lots of hurt/bitterness still) that I still don't feel like I can be rude to them. Gah. Still, the visit did result in Good Guy saying he'd do some basic garden maintenance for us, which is good because Phil and I are too busy (and I'm too inept when it comes to garden stuff) and mum too ill to be able to do it ourselves. I also chatted to the Home Teaching Companion about UKC, where he was a student at KLS until 2007, which was quite nice. Alas, I fear I have given away too much of my location to him in my desire to express how much I loved Canterbury. Hope we don't end up with a visit from the missionaries...

When I finally got to my pizza it was lukewarm, fading to cold before the end :( I've no idea how they manage it, but Mormons seem very good at turning up when dinner is nearly or actually ready and then talking until it's cold :(

Currently waiting for the Tesco delivery to arrive and feeling the early and cold today. I'd then go back to sleep and be a big lazy thing, but it's mum's payday and if she feels up to it has a number of things she wants to do.


Much later - Tesco turned up, food is all put away. Think I may have ordered too much. Fridge and Freezer cannae take much more captain! Also managed to have a shower, in preparation for venturing to Croydon later if mum feels up to it.

ETA: 12/07/11 No longer filtered
lizziec: (carebare grumpy sleeping)
Yesterday was a much better day for a couple of reasons. First, I got out for a bit a couple of times (getting some ginger tea and some peppermint tea, and some water biscuits to help mum with her nausea and vomiting; going to Coulsdon for a little bit of a wander with mum later), and secondly I achieved some stuff. I have a feeling that those things are quite important in making me feel useful and thus better about being here.

Mum had pretty bad nausea and vomiting on Monday and during Monday night, but started to feel better on Tuesday morning, though still very tired. She cancelled some visitors who were supposed to be coming in the morning and rested and managed to eat something, and by Lunchtime felt up to attempting to go out, so we took it in several steps, which seemed to help her. Pension first, then Coulsdon itself. First to Coulsdon Hardware to get a new mop and bucket (having broken mum's mop during the great room tidy project - it was very funny, Phil looked all forlorn and said looking very sad "I could have sworn [the squeegee mechanism] would have worked before I actually broke it...), then as she was still doing ok we went on to the butchers for some sausages for tomorrow night, then as she was still doing ok we went on to the Coffee place that has sprung up in Coulsdon since I moved away/the bypass was built. A cold drink from there and some carrot cake seemed to do wonders for perking mum up, as, I'm pretty sure, did just getting out. The whole trip wiped her out, but she said she felt better for it.

While she had a sleep I went to work playing with the mop trialling the mop, before losing interest mopping the floors in the kitchen and the bathroom, and hoovering all the other floors while I was at it and had the vacuum cleaner out. I'm pretty sure that the kitchen floor is better for it. I hope so anyway, because it was hard work.

My adventures in cleaning did reveal to me some interesting personality traits in my mum's cats though. George, who is enormous and I think likes to think of himself as a bit of a hard man, is a big scaredy cat who is terrified of the vacuum cleaner. When I went near his chosen sitting place with it on he jumped up and ran away. On the other hand, Violet, who is his sister and very petite, wasn't scared of the vacuum or the mop, or the fact the kitchen floor was wet, and stayed put in the kitchen on her chosen worktop the whole time I was working in there. But curiously I found out while was taking a break that Violet is scared of 80's Power Ballads. While I was taking a break and listening to a rather eclectic mix of music, Violet was curled up next to me asleep. Every time an 80's Power Ballad came on, she'd jump up and look a bit freaked out and need some fussing before she'd relax again. It was very cute. And funny. And I'm clearly mean ;)

The rest of the afternoon and evening was spent in my little room again, catching up on various internet things, including the CBB, where I asked for prayers and thoughts to do with this situation and everyone has been overwhelmingly amazing. I can't express how touched I am with the responses, especially towards someone who is largely a lurker now and most people don't know well, but will have a go later at expressing it anyway, because they deserve to know how awesome they are.

Anyway, while I was geeking around with my laptop I became aware of being very cold. I assumed I was just being a big girly wuss, especially as this room is colder than the others because of an air vent in the wall. About half 7 I finally got around to checking on the radiator and it was stone cold at a time when I knew it should be on, and discovered that the gas had run out (I'd forgotten how much of a pain these type of meters could be). Ended up taking the gas card and the electric key down to the place in the valley that tops them up and decided while I was out I'd get a pizza for dinner because I really couldn't be bothered to cook by this time. All this meant I was back a bit later than I otherwise would have been and I walked into a gaggle (if two plus a toddler is a gaggle) of Mormons, so my pizza went cold while we all talked. As most of you know, I'm no longer a Mormon, and my time with them was often rather, um, fraught, but one of the people (Good Guy) who was there is the only one who consistently stood by my family through everything and who still talks to, and is on good terms with us. Which is the reason I didn't shoo him out of the door faster.

Mum resigned from the church finally last year sometime over the Church's interference with California's Proposition 8 last year, and has foregone contact with them (except for Good Guy) for long before that, so it was a bit of a surprise to see this man with his Home Teaching companion. They'd come to offer mum a Priesthood Blessing as apparently when Good Guy saw her on Sunday to see if there was anything he could do, he offered one and mum said she'd think about it.

Anyway, she decided that actually she didn't want one and proceeded to doze through the rest of the visit - good for her - while I chatted because after about 6 years out, and 6 years inactive before, and what they did to me and my family (lots of hurt/bitterness still) that I still don't feel like I can be rude to them. Gah. Still, the visit did result in Good Guy saying he'd do some basic garden maintenance for us, which is good because Phil and I are too busy (and I'm too inept when it comes to garden stuff) and mum too ill to be able to do it ourselves. I also chatted to the Home Teaching Companion about UKC, where he was a student at KLS until 2007, which was quite nice. Alas, I fear I have given away too much of my location to him in my desire to express how much I loved Canterbury. Hope we don't end up with a visit from the missionaries...

When I finally got to my pizza it was lukewarm, fading to cold before the end :( I've no idea how they manage it, but Mormons seem very good at turning up when dinner is nearly or actually ready and then talking until it's cold :(

Currently waiting for the Tesco delivery to arrive and feeling the early and cold today. I'd then go back to sleep and be a big lazy thing, but it's mum's payday and if she feels up to it has a number of things she wants to do.


Much later - Tesco turned up, food is all put away. Think I may have ordered too much. Fridge and Freezer cannae take much more captain! Also managed to have a shower, in preparation for venturing to Croydon later if mum feels up to it.

ETA: 12/07/11 No longer filtered
lizziec: (carebare grumpy sleeping)
Yesterday was a much better day for a couple of reasons. First, I got out for a bit a couple of times (getting some ginger tea and some peppermint tea, and some water biscuits to help mum with her nausea and vomiting; going to Coulsdon for a little bit of a wander with mum later), and secondly I achieved some stuff. I have a feeling that those things are quite important in making me feel useful and thus better about being here.

Mum had pretty bad nausea and vomiting on Monday and during Monday night, but started to feel better on Tuesday morning, though still very tired. She cancelled some visitors who were supposed to be coming in the morning and rested and managed to eat something, and by Lunchtime felt up to attempting to go out, so we took it in several steps, which seemed to help her. Pension first, then Coulsdon itself. First to Coulsdon Hardware to get a new mop and bucket (having broken mum's mop during the great room tidy project - it was very funny, Phil looked all forlorn and said looking very sad "I could have sworn [the squeegee mechanism] would have worked before I actually broke it...), then as she was still doing ok we went on to the butchers for some sausages for tomorrow night, then as she was still doing ok we went on to the Coffee place that has sprung up in Coulsdon since I moved away/the bypass was built. A cold drink from there and some carrot cake seemed to do wonders for perking mum up, as, I'm pretty sure, did just getting out. The whole trip wiped her out, but she said she felt better for it.

While she had a sleep I went to work playing with the mop trialling the mop, before losing interest mopping the floors in the kitchen and the bathroom, and hoovering all the other floors while I was at it and had the vacuum cleaner out. I'm pretty sure that the kitchen floor is better for it. I hope so anyway, because it was hard work.

My adventures in cleaning did reveal to me some interesting personality traits in my mum's cats though. George, who is enormous and I think likes to think of himself as a bit of a hard man, is a big scaredy cat who is terrified of the vacuum cleaner. When I went near his chosen sitting place with it on he jumped up and ran away. On the other hand, Violet, who is his sister and very petite, wasn't scared of the vacuum or the mop, or the fact the kitchen floor was wet, and stayed put in the kitchen on her chosen worktop the whole time I was working in there. But curiously I found out while was taking a break that Violet is scared of 80's Power Ballads. While I was taking a break and listening to a rather eclectic mix of music, Violet was curled up next to me asleep. Every time an 80's Power Ballad came on, she'd jump up and look a bit freaked out and need some fussing before she'd relax again. It was very cute. And funny. And I'm clearly mean ;)

The rest of the afternoon and evening was spent in my little room again, catching up on various internet things, including the CBB, where I asked for prayers and thoughts to do with this situation and everyone has been overwhelmingly amazing. I can't express how touched I am with the responses, especially towards someone who is largely a lurker now and most people don't know well, but will have a go later at expressing it anyway, because they deserve to know how awesome they are.

Anyway, while I was geeking around with my laptop I became aware of being very cold. I assumed I was just being a big girly wuss, especially as this room is colder than the others because of an air vent in the wall. About half 7 I finally got around to checking on the radiator and it was stone cold at a time when I knew it should be on, and discovered that the gas had run out (I'd forgotten how much of a pain these type of meters could be). Ended up taking the gas card and the electric key down to the place in the valley that tops them up and decided while I was out I'd get a pizza for dinner because I really couldn't be bothered to cook by this time. All this meant I was back a bit later than I otherwise would have been and I walked into a gaggle (if two plus a toddler is a gaggle) of Mormons, so my pizza went cold while we all talked. As most of you know, I'm no longer a Mormon, and my time with them was often rather, um, fraught, but one of the people (Good Guy) who was there is the only one who consistently stood by my family through everything and who still talks to, and is on good terms with us. Which is the reason I didn't shoo him out of the door faster.

Mum resigned from the church finally last year sometime over the Church's interference with California's Proposition 8 last year, and has foregone contact with them (except for Good Guy) for long before that, so it was a bit of a surprise to see this man with his Home Teaching companion. They'd come to offer mum a Priesthood Blessing as apparently when Good Guy saw her on Sunday to see if there was anything he could do, he offered one and mum said she'd think about it.

Anyway, she decided that actually she didn't want one and proceeded to doze through the rest of the visit - good for her - while I chatted because after about 6 years out, and 6 years inactive before, and what they did to me and my family (lots of hurt/bitterness still) that I still don't feel like I can be rude to them. Gah. Still, the visit did result in Good Guy saying he'd do some basic garden maintenance for us, which is good because Phil and I are too busy (and I'm too inept when it comes to garden stuff) and mum too ill to be able to do it ourselves. I also chatted to the Home Teaching Companion about UKC, where he was a student at KLS until 2007, which was quite nice. Alas, I fear I have given away too much of my location to him in my desire to express how much I loved Canterbury. Hope we don't end up with a visit from the missionaries...

When I finally got to my pizza it was lukewarm, fading to cold before the end :( I've no idea how they manage it, but Mormons seem very good at turning up when dinner is nearly or actually ready and then talking until it's cold :(

Currently waiting for the Tesco delivery to arrive and feeling the early and cold today. I'd then go back to sleep and be a big lazy thing, but it's mum's payday and if she feels up to it has a number of things she wants to do.


Much later - Tesco turned up, food is all put away. Think I may have ordered too much. Fridge and Freezer cannae take much more captain! Also managed to have a shower, in preparation for venturing to Croydon later if mum feels up to it.

ETA: 12/07/11 No longer filtered
lizziec: (Frazer-doomed)
This post has been brought on by two things. First, it's the Euro and County Council elections (at least for us in Kent) tomorrow (possibly today, depending on when I finish writing this). Second, we finally received a leaflet from Labour today and I really don't think they're even trying to contest this election. I was shocked by the poor quality and decided to share. Then I figured that I may as well document all the political bumf that Ben and I have had through the letter box during this process.

Some were addressed to me, some were addressed to Ben. Interestingly, apart from the Greens, it was different letters/leaflets addressed to each of us (if they were addressed at all), rather than any overlap.

Click on pictures to embiggen throughout.


An artfully arranged display of all our leaflets.

I'll start with the shoddy leaflet that kicked all this off, which is the last one we have received.

This one is courtesy of Labour. I'm not a Labour supporter, so I admit this might be rather biased of me, but this is possibly the worst political leaflet I have ever seen. Acres of blank space, poor grammar and spelling, and clearly has not been proof read before being printed off. Which is sad because I can only assume it's been/being passed around the district, and it's really not a good advert for the Labour Party. Read it and you'll see what I mean.

Labour leaflet )

The Conservatives have tried hardest, sending round several leaflets, and the only party to send someone to Canvass us. I should mention that neither Ben nor I are currently registered with any political party, so that can't be the reason we have quite so many Conservative mailshots. I can only assume that they're trying this hard with everyone.

This was the most recent. )

Ben had a 'personal' letter from the KCC candidate. )

Another Conservative leaflet. Can't remember when this one arrived. )

This last one is a copy of the main Conservative KCC leaflet. This one was hand delivered by the canvasser. We have two copies of this as one was in with the letter that Ben got, shown further up.

The problem we had with this is that it reads like a particularly poor CV. On the upside, there was little wasted space and it did appear to have been spell checked/proof read before it was printed.

On the downside, it does lie, as did the Canvasser about the John Simmonds (the Cons Candidate for Canterbury West, which is our ward) being "The Local Choice". The Canvasser told me that the candidate lived "just round the corner". This is untrue. John Simmonds lives in Whitstable, which is not "just round the corner". According to google maps it is actually 5.7 miles away from my address to his. I suppose it could be a very large corner...

In fact, I believe the Canvasser was referring to the Conservative candidate for the Canterbury South-West Ward (Maureen Robinson), who does live "just round the corner" in Oaks Park (I believe).

While Whiststable may be "local", it's not local in the sense the canvasser, and I believe the leaflet, were aiming at.

Not impressed.

Also not impressed with myself - I only remembered the questions I wanted to ask the canvasser (pot holes, Iceland[as in banks, not supermarkets]) after I closed the door, and I wasn't about to go chasing after him!

Conservative leaflet for KCC. )

The Green Party sent us two leaflets, one addressed to each of us. Unfortunately they were both identical and both came through the post. Have to wonder about the Carbon Footprint of that.

Green Party leaflet )

We also got a leaflet from the "No2EU" party, who appear to be endorsed only by Bob Crow of RMT Union fame.

No2EU )

We have also received the now infamous BNP leaflet. Not sure what we'll do with it yet. Possibly shred it and then set it on fire. Ben pointed out it looked rather like a kebab menu, which is funny because it's true.

I don't know where to start on the ways in which this hate filled nasty little piece of racist propaganda annoys and frustrates me, so I shan't even try. I only picture it for completeness and posterity. I hope in years to come I can look back and laugh on the fact that people ever considered voting for these cretins, especially on the basis of this.

I just hope they don't win a significant share of the vote, especially a share significant enough to win a seat.

BNP )

Given my political sympathies swing towards the Lib Dems, perhaps naturally as they were the party supported by my parents while I was growing up (I delivered my fair share of Focuses, did several shifts of telling at several elections at my local polling station, had an action room in our living room during a general election - tables and tables of addresses! - and even attended a Count as Lib Dem representative - all while I was 18 or younger) I am disappointed by the efforts of the local party.

No Canvassing, at least, not round my block of flats. Only one leaflet about only one of the two elections. Given they say on their leaflet that "only the Lib Dems can beat the Conservatives here" I don't feel like they really tried at all. One leaflet specifically about the election, and then only about the Europeans, nothing at all about KCC.

A Lib Dem publication was the first one we got during this cycle, I seem to remember anyway, but it was a regular quarterly Focus, nothing really to do with the election. It was also in need of a proof read as at the very least the URL at the bottom of page two was wrong - "www.cantlibdem" is no URL at all.

What I'm trying to say, badly, is that I'm disappointed in the Lib Dem campaign, at least in my ward. I want to vote for them, but I feel like they've done nothing to deserve it. They've certainly not actually tried to get my vote.

I hoped for more.

Focus )

We got this leaflet, which is the Lib Dem Euro specific one, only very recently - possibly the last week or so?

Euro specific Lib Dem leaflet )

I know campaigning in a Tory stronghold (Canterbury constituency has elected only Conservative MPs since 1874, the longest any current UK constituency has remained under the control of one party [source=wikipedia]), but really, if you don't make the effort (and I apply this to Labour, much as I dislike them atm, as much as I do to the Liberal Democrats) then they'll never be beaten here. Most elections here (Canterbury) seem to have a depressing enevitability about them. Purely on the basis of who sends out the most stuff and is the most visible (including on the doorstep), it is the Conservatives who are the most visible.

Anyway, I should go to bed. I'm getting up early to vote!

ETA: the election is today as I finish writing. It's gone 1am!
lizziec: (Frazer-doomed)
This post has been brought on by two things. First, it's the Euro and County Council elections (at least for us in Kent) tomorrow (possibly today, depending on when I finish writing this). Second, we finally received a leaflet from Labour today and I really don't think they're even trying to contest this election. I was shocked by the poor quality and decided to share. Then I figured that I may as well document all the political bumf that Ben and I have had through the letter box during this process.

Some were addressed to me, some were addressed to Ben. Interestingly, apart from the Greens, it was different letters/leaflets addressed to each of us (if they were addressed at all), rather than any overlap.

Click on pictures to embiggen throughout.


An artfully arranged display of all our leaflets.

I'll start with the shoddy leaflet that kicked all this off, which is the last one we have received.

This one is courtesy of Labour. I'm not a Labour supporter, so I admit this might be rather biased of me, but this is possibly the worst political leaflet I have ever seen. Acres of blank space, poor grammar and spelling, and clearly has not been proof read before being printed off. Which is sad because I can only assume it's been/being passed around the district, and it's really not a good advert for the Labour Party. Read it and you'll see what I mean.

Labour leaflet )

The Conservatives have tried hardest, sending round several leaflets, and the only party to send someone to Canvass us. I should mention that neither Ben nor I are currently registered with any political party, so that can't be the reason we have quite so many Conservative mailshots. I can only assume that they're trying this hard with everyone.

This was the most recent. )

Ben had a 'personal' letter from the KCC candidate. )

Another Conservative leaflet. Can't remember when this one arrived. )

This last one is a copy of the main Conservative KCC leaflet. This one was hand delivered by the canvasser. We have two copies of this as one was in with the letter that Ben got, shown further up.

The problem we had with this is that it reads like a particularly poor CV. On the upside, there was little wasted space and it did appear to have been spell checked/proof read before it was printed.

On the downside, it does lie, as did the Canvasser about the John Simmonds (the Cons Candidate for Canterbury West, which is our ward) being "The Local Choice". The Canvasser told me that the candidate lived "just round the corner". This is untrue. John Simmonds lives in Whitstable, which is not "just round the corner". According to google maps it is actually 5.7 miles away from my address to his. I suppose it could be a very large corner...

In fact, I believe the Canvasser was referring to the Conservative candidate for the Canterbury South-West Ward (Maureen Robinson), who does live "just round the corner" in Oaks Park (I believe).

While Whiststable may be "local", it's not local in the sense the canvasser, and I believe the leaflet, were aiming at.

Not impressed.

Also not impressed with myself - I only remembered the questions I wanted to ask the canvasser (pot holes, Iceland[as in banks, not supermarkets]) after I closed the door, and I wasn't about to go chasing after him!

Conservative leaflet for KCC. )

The Green Party sent us two leaflets, one addressed to each of us. Unfortunately they were both identical and both came through the post. Have to wonder about the Carbon Footprint of that.

Green Party leaflet )

We also got a leaflet from the "No2EU" party, who appear to be endorsed only by Bob Crow of RMT Union fame.

No2EU )

We have also received the now infamous BNP leaflet. Not sure what we'll do with it yet. Possibly shred it and then set it on fire. Ben pointed out it looked rather like a kebab menu, which is funny because it's true.

I don't know where to start on the ways in which this hate filled nasty little piece of racist propaganda annoys and frustrates me, so I shan't even try. I only picture it for completeness and posterity. I hope in years to come I can look back and laugh on the fact that people ever considered voting for these cretins, especially on the basis of this.

I just hope they don't win a significant share of the vote, especially a share significant enough to win a seat.

BNP )

Given my political sympathies swing towards the Lib Dems, perhaps naturally as they were the party supported by my parents while I was growing up (I delivered my fair share of Focuses, did several shifts of telling at several elections at my local polling station, had an action room in our living room during a general election - tables and tables of addresses! - and even attended a Count as Lib Dem representative - all while I was 18 or younger) I am disappointed by the efforts of the local party.

No Canvassing, at least, not round my block of flats. Only one leaflet about only one of the two elections. Given they say on their leaflet that "only the Lib Dems can beat the Conservatives here" I don't feel like they really tried at all. One leaflet specifically about the election, and then only about the Europeans, nothing at all about KCC.

A Lib Dem publication was the first one we got during this cycle, I seem to remember anyway, but it was a regular quarterly Focus, nothing really to do with the election. It was also in need of a proof read as at the very least the URL at the bottom of page two was wrong - "www.cantlibdem" is no URL at all.

What I'm trying to say, badly, is that I'm disappointed in the Lib Dem campaign, at least in my ward. I want to vote for them, but I feel like they've done nothing to deserve it. They've certainly not actually tried to get my vote.

I hoped for more.

Focus )

We got this leaflet, which is the Lib Dem Euro specific one, only very recently - possibly the last week or so?

Euro specific Lib Dem leaflet )

I know campaigning in a Tory stronghold (Canterbury constituency has elected only Conservative MPs since 1874, the longest any current UK constituency has remained under the control of one party [source=wikipedia]), but really, if you don't make the effort (and I apply this to Labour, much as I dislike them atm, as much as I do to the Liberal Democrats) then they'll never be beaten here. Most elections here (Canterbury) seem to have a depressing enevitability about them. Purely on the basis of who sends out the most stuff and is the most visible (including on the doorstep), it is the Conservatives who are the most visible.

Anyway, I should go to bed. I'm getting up early to vote!

ETA: the election is today as I finish writing. It's gone 1am!
lizziec: (Frazer-doomed)
This post has been brought on by two things. First, it's the Euro and County Council elections (at least for us in Kent) tomorrow (possibly today, depending on when I finish writing this). Second, we finally received a leaflet from Labour today and I really don't think they're even trying to contest this election. I was shocked by the poor quality and decided to share. Then I figured that I may as well document all the political bumf that Ben and I have had through the letter box during this process.

Some were addressed to me, some were addressed to Ben. Interestingly, apart from the Greens, it was different letters/leaflets addressed to each of us (if they were addressed at all), rather than any overlap.

Click on pictures to embiggen throughout.


An artfully arranged display of all our leaflets.

I'll start with the shoddy leaflet that kicked all this off, which is the last one we have received.

This one is courtesy of Labour. I'm not a Labour supporter, so I admit this might be rather biased of me, but this is possibly the worst political leaflet I have ever seen. Acres of blank space, poor grammar and spelling, and clearly has not been proof read before being printed off. Which is sad because I can only assume it's been/being passed around the district, and it's really not a good advert for the Labour Party. Read it and you'll see what I mean.

Labour leaflet )

The Conservatives have tried hardest, sending round several leaflets, and the only party to send someone to Canvass us. I should mention that neither Ben nor I are currently registered with any political party, so that can't be the reason we have quite so many Conservative mailshots. I can only assume that they're trying this hard with everyone.

This was the most recent. )

Ben had a 'personal' letter from the KCC candidate. )

Another Conservative leaflet. Can't remember when this one arrived. )

This last one is a copy of the main Conservative KCC leaflet. This one was hand delivered by the canvasser. We have two copies of this as one was in with the letter that Ben got, shown further up.

The problem we had with this is that it reads like a particularly poor CV. On the upside, there was little wasted space and it did appear to have been spell checked/proof read before it was printed.

On the downside, it does lie, as did the Canvasser about the John Simmonds (the Cons Candidate for Canterbury West, which is our ward) being "The Local Choice". The Canvasser told me that the candidate lived "just round the corner". This is untrue. John Simmonds lives in Whitstable, which is not "just round the corner". According to google maps it is actually 5.7 miles away from my address to his. I suppose it could be a very large corner...

In fact, I believe the Canvasser was referring to the Conservative candidate for the Canterbury South-West Ward (Maureen Robinson), who does live "just round the corner" in Oaks Park (I believe).

While Whiststable may be "local", it's not local in the sense the canvasser, and I believe the leaflet, were aiming at.

Not impressed.

Also not impressed with myself - I only remembered the questions I wanted to ask the canvasser (pot holes, Iceland[as in banks, not supermarkets]) after I closed the door, and I wasn't about to go chasing after him!

Conservative leaflet for KCC. )

The Green Party sent us two leaflets, one addressed to each of us. Unfortunately they were both identical and both came through the post. Have to wonder about the Carbon Footprint of that.

Green Party leaflet )

We also got a leaflet from the "No2EU" party, who appear to be endorsed only by Bob Crow of RMT Union fame.

No2EU )

We have also received the now infamous BNP leaflet. Not sure what we'll do with it yet. Possibly shred it and then set it on fire. Ben pointed out it looked rather like a kebab menu, which is funny because it's true.

I don't know where to start on the ways in which this hate filled nasty little piece of racist propaganda annoys and frustrates me, so I shan't even try. I only picture it for completeness and posterity. I hope in years to come I can look back and laugh on the fact that people ever considered voting for these cretins, especially on the basis of this.

I just hope they don't win a significant share of the vote, especially a share significant enough to win a seat.

BNP )

Given my political sympathies swing towards the Lib Dems, perhaps naturally as they were the party supported by my parents while I was growing up (I delivered my fair share of Focuses, did several shifts of telling at several elections at my local polling station, had an action room in our living room during a general election - tables and tables of addresses! - and even attended a Count as Lib Dem representative - all while I was 18 or younger) I am disappointed by the efforts of the local party.

No Canvassing, at least, not round my block of flats. Only one leaflet about only one of the two elections. Given they say on their leaflet that "only the Lib Dems can beat the Conservatives here" I don't feel like they really tried at all. One leaflet specifically about the election, and then only about the Europeans, nothing at all about KCC.

A Lib Dem publication was the first one we got during this cycle, I seem to remember anyway, but it was a regular quarterly Focus, nothing really to do with the election. It was also in need of a proof read as at the very least the URL at the bottom of page two was wrong - "www.cantlibdem" is no URL at all.

What I'm trying to say, badly, is that I'm disappointed in the Lib Dem campaign, at least in my ward. I want to vote for them, but I feel like they've done nothing to deserve it. They've certainly not actually tried to get my vote.

I hoped for more.

Focus )

We got this leaflet, which is the Lib Dem Euro specific one, only very recently - possibly the last week or so?

Euro specific Lib Dem leaflet )

I know campaigning in a Tory stronghold (Canterbury constituency has elected only Conservative MPs since 1874, the longest any current UK constituency has remained under the control of one party [source=wikipedia]), but really, if you don't make the effort (and I apply this to Labour, much as I dislike them atm, as much as I do to the Liberal Democrats) then they'll never be beaten here. Most elections here (Canterbury) seem to have a depressing enevitability about them. Purely on the basis of who sends out the most stuff and is the most visible (including on the doorstep), it is the Conservatives who are the most visible.

Anyway, I should go to bed. I'm getting up early to vote!

ETA: the election is today as I finish writing. It's gone 1am!
lizziec: (XKCD sheeple)
I'm currently feeling rather annoyed by this. " All travel plans to be tracked by Government". Under the plans, starting to be brought in already: "Anyone departing the UK by land, sea or air will have their trip recorded and stored on a database for a decade."

I don't know where to start on this, or what annoys me most. Perhaps it is the justifcation from the government:

"The changes are being brought in as the Government tries to tighten border controls and increase protection against the threat of international terrorism."


How does tracking people leaving the country and holding the details for 10 years protect us against terrorism? This comes across as a standard line from the government, much like how ID cards will apparently protect us, even if they didn't protect the people of Madrid.

Or it might be the "condemnation" of the plans by Chris Grayling, the home affairs spokesman for the Conservatives:

""Of course we need to keep a proper record of people as they come in and leave the country.

"My worry is that the Government is creating something which will be unwieldy, impossible to manage and expensive to operate.

"I think this system has to be much simpler."
"


I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound much like it's condemning the plans to me.

Grrrr. This government is making me so annoyed with plans like this I barely know where to start. As soon as one lot are withdrawn, another lot comes up. I'm starting to feel quite worn down by it all.
lizziec: (XKCD sheeple)
I'm currently feeling rather annoyed by this. " All travel plans to be tracked by Government". Under the plans, starting to be brought in already: "Anyone departing the UK by land, sea or air will have their trip recorded and stored on a database for a decade."

I don't know where to start on this, or what annoys me most. Perhaps it is the justifcation from the government:

"The changes are being brought in as the Government tries to tighten border controls and increase protection against the threat of international terrorism."


How does tracking people leaving the country and holding the details for 10 years protect us against terrorism? This comes across as a standard line from the government, much like how ID cards will apparently protect us, even if they didn't protect the people of Madrid.

Or it might be the "condemnation" of the plans by Chris Grayling, the home affairs spokesman for the Conservatives:

""Of course we need to keep a proper record of people as they come in and leave the country.

"My worry is that the Government is creating something which will be unwieldy, impossible to manage and expensive to operate.

"I think this system has to be much simpler."
"


I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound much like it's condemning the plans to me.

Grrrr. This government is making me so annoyed with plans like this I barely know where to start. As soon as one lot are withdrawn, another lot comes up. I'm starting to feel quite worn down by it all.
lizziec: (XKCD sheeple)
I'm currently feeling rather annoyed by this. " All travel plans to be tracked by Government". Under the plans, starting to be brought in already: "Anyone departing the UK by land, sea or air will have their trip recorded and stored on a database for a decade."

I don't know where to start on this, or what annoys me most. Perhaps it is the justifcation from the government:

"The changes are being brought in as the Government tries to tighten border controls and increase protection against the threat of international terrorism."


How does tracking people leaving the country and holding the details for 10 years protect us against terrorism? This comes across as a standard line from the government, much like how ID cards will apparently protect us, even if they didn't protect the people of Madrid.

Or it might be the "condemnation" of the plans by Chris Grayling, the home affairs spokesman for the Conservatives:

""Of course we need to keep a proper record of people as they come in and leave the country.

"My worry is that the Government is creating something which will be unwieldy, impossible to manage and expensive to operate.

"I think this system has to be much simpler."
"


I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound much like it's condemning the plans to me.

Grrrr. This government is making me so annoyed with plans like this I barely know where to start. As soon as one lot are withdrawn, another lot comes up. I'm starting to feel quite worn down by it all.
lizziec: (apod - lightening-moon)
I've recently been reading my brand new copy of When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit (my old one, that I had had since I was 8 or so, fell apart from being read rather a lot). I got my new copy through the [livejournal.com profile] lj_uk Christmas Wishlist exchange - it's this edition (2008). According to Barnes and Noble (and various other sites) this book is recommended for 8-12 year olds. I'd agree with that, seems like a good age to read it for the first time.

My edition has a foreword called "Why You'll Love This Book" by Michael Morpurgo, Children's Laureate from 2003-2005. Bear in mind, when reading what comes next that this book is recommended for ages 8-12. His style in writing the foreword suggests that he is talking to these young readers.

The fifth paragraph starts:
"When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit, published forty years ago, speaks to us of a time most of us know only through books of history and fiction, through archive film, as well as through movies. It is from The Diary of Anne Frank to I am David and Schindler's List and The Pianist that most of us have our haunting but distant insights into the lives of those who had experienced the terrors and horrors of Nazi persecution and extermination..."

I understand that 8-12 year olds may well have read the former two (The Diary of Anne Frank and I am David) - I know I had read at least one of those at that age (Anne Frank), having both a taste for the historical and something of a fascination with all things WWII (and Holocaust - I think I was a rather odd child). However, I highly doubt they have seen the latter (Schindler's List and The Pianist), not least because they're both rated 15. Don't get me wrong, they're both right up there as favourite films, I think they're amazing. But they're definitely not for children of the age the book is primarily aimed at.

I dunno. That part of the foreword just felt rather odd. Surely, given the writer's status as a former Children's Laureate, he would be aware of what a child of that age has been exposed to, and what they haven't?

lizziec: (apod - lightening-moon)
I've recently been reading my brand new copy of When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit (my old one, that I had had since I was 8 or so, fell apart from being read rather a lot). I got my new copy through the [livejournal.com profile] lj_uk Christmas Wishlist exchange - it's this edition (2008). According to Barnes and Noble (and various other sites) this book is recommended for 8-12 year olds. I'd agree with that, seems like a good age to read it for the first time.

My edition has a foreword called "Why You'll Love This Book" by Michael Morpurgo, Children's Laureate from 2003-2005. Bear in mind, when reading what comes next that this book is recommended for ages 8-12. His style in writing the foreword suggests that he is talking to these young readers.

The fifth paragraph starts:
"When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit, published forty years ago, speaks to us of a time most of us know only through books of history and fiction, through archive film, as well as through movies. It is from The Diary of Anne Frank to I am David and Schindler's List and The Pianist that most of us have our haunting but distant insights into the lives of those who had experienced the terrors and horrors of Nazi persecution and extermination..."

I understand that 8-12 year olds may well have read the former two (The Diary of Anne Frank and I am David) - I know I had read at least one of those at that age (Anne Frank), having both a taste for the historical and something of a fascination with all things WWII (and Holocaust - I think I was a rather odd child). However, I highly doubt they have seen the latter (Schindler's List and The Pianist), not least because they're both rated 15. Don't get me wrong, they're both right up there as favourite films, I think they're amazing. But they're definitely not for children of the age the book is primarily aimed at.

I dunno. That part of the foreword just felt rather odd. Surely, given the writer's status as a former Children's Laureate, he would be aware of what a child of that age has been exposed to, and what they haven't?

lizziec: (apod - lightening-moon)
I've recently been reading my brand new copy of When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit (my old one, that I had had since I was 8 or so, fell apart from being read rather a lot). I got my new copy through the [livejournal.com profile] lj_uk Christmas Wishlist exchange - it's this edition (2008). According to Barnes and Noble (and various other sites) this book is recommended for 8-12 year olds. I'd agree with that, seems like a good age to read it for the first time.

My edition has a foreword called "Why You'll Love This Book" by Michael Morpurgo, Children's Laureate from 2003-2005. Bear in mind, when reading what comes next that this book is recommended for ages 8-12. His style in writing the foreword suggests that he is talking to these young readers.

The fifth paragraph starts:
"When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit, published forty years ago, speaks to us of a time most of us know only through books of history and fiction, through archive film, as well as through movies. It is from The Diary of Anne Frank to I am David and Schindler's List and The Pianist that most of us have our haunting but distant insights into the lives of those who had experienced the terrors and horrors of Nazi persecution and extermination..."

I understand that 8-12 year olds may well have read the former two (The Diary of Anne Frank and I am David) - I know I had read at least one of those at that age (Anne Frank), having both a taste for the historical and something of a fascination with all things WWII (and Holocaust - I think I was a rather odd child). However, I highly doubt they have seen the latter (Schindler's List and The Pianist), not least because they're both rated 15. Don't get me wrong, they're both right up there as favourite films, I think they're amazing. But they're definitely not for children of the age the book is primarily aimed at.

I dunno. That part of the foreword just felt rather odd. Surely, given the writer's status as a former Children's Laureate, he would be aware of what a child of that age has been exposed to, and what they haven't?
lizziec: (Rocks fall)
Having made it through Edexcel marking and Clearing more or less in one piece I'm now starting to look at jobs and I've found one I want to apply for.

I've become rather stymied by the "Do you consider yourself to have a disability" question. Thing is, I'm much better than I was, I have to be or I wouldn't consider applying for jobs at all and those closest to me wouldn't let me, but I've been off work for a year, and a year long gap doesn't look good on a CV. I'm still seeing my counsellor and I'm still on happy pills, and though I'm winding down visits to my counsellor I'm probably going to be on the pills for at least another year to make sure I'm properly better and try and stop any relapse. Apparently the first year is when I'm most vulnerable to it. My gut says I should declare it, but I also feel like a bit of a fraud for even considering it.

"The University operates under the Two ticks scheme which means we will interview all applicants with a disability who meet the minimum criteria for a job vacancy and consider them on their abilities". This is rather valuable, and I feel it's my only shot at an interview given the huge gap on my CV when I was essentially "doing nothing", but am I really disabled as it's counted?

The University say: When answering this question, please note that under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 a disability is defined as ‘a mental or physical impairment which has a substantial and long term effect upon your ability to carry out normal day to day activities.’.

[Poll #1246569]

(Please post any expansion on this or thoughts in comments below)

I can't help but feel that this would all be easier if I were visibly physically disabled.

Any (helpful) advice or comments you lot could give would be really great. I'm feeling very mixed up about this, and a tad anxious about giving the "wrong" answer if I'm completely honest. I mean, I was never on benefits while off work (the forms scared me) so never really "disabled" in the eyes of the government. I just don't know what to say :|
lizziec: (animals - gerbil - stan)
In light of the discussion on IRC earlier about DRM which led to downloading stuff, and the potential "three strike" rule (see this and this to see what sparked the discussion), I thought the following might be interesting for several people. I participate in the YouGov daily "select" surveys, and the day after they send out the results so you can see what other people think. These are the results from Friday's survey (questions above the results) - they seemed relevant.

Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online. To what extent do you approve or oppose the following action?

Music piracy should be made illegal
Strongly approve 24.4%
Approve somewhat 27.1%
Disapprove somewhat 14%
Strongly disapprove 13%
Neither approve nor disapprove 18.1%

Internet providers should enforce a 'three strike' rule.
Strongly approve 25.9%
Approve somewhat 26.5%
Disapprove somewhat 12.3%
Strongly disapprove 21.3%
Neither approve nor disapprove 10.8%

Online users should be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing
Strongly approve 7.3%
Approve somewhat 12.8%
Disapprove somewhat 13%
Strongly disapprove 52.7%
Neither approve nor disapprove 8.7%
lizziec: (animals - gerbil - stan)
In light of the discussion on IRC earlier about DRM which led to downloading stuff, and the potential "three strike" rule (see this and this to see what sparked the discussion), I thought the following might be interesting for several people. I participate in the YouGov daily "select" surveys, and the day after they send out the results so you can see what other people think. These are the results from Friday's survey (questions above the results) - they seemed relevant.

Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online. To what extent do you approve or oppose the following action?

Music piracy should be made illegal
Strongly approve 24.4%
Approve somewhat 27.1%
Disapprove somewhat 14%
Strongly disapprove 13%
Neither approve nor disapprove 18.1%

Internet providers should enforce a 'three strike' rule.
Strongly approve 25.9%
Approve somewhat 26.5%
Disapprove somewhat 12.3%
Strongly disapprove 21.3%
Neither approve nor disapprove 10.8%

Online users should be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing
Strongly approve 7.3%
Approve somewhat 12.8%
Disapprove somewhat 13%
Strongly disapprove 52.7%
Neither approve nor disapprove 8.7%
lizziec: (animals - gerbil - stan)
In light of the discussion on IRC earlier about DRM which led to downloading stuff, and the potential "three strike" rule (see this and this to see what sparked the discussion), I thought the following might be interesting for several people. I participate in the YouGov daily "select" surveys, and the day after they send out the results so you can see what other people think. These are the results from Friday's survey (questions above the results) - they seemed relevant.

Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online. To what extent do you approve or oppose the following action?

Music piracy should be made illegal
Strongly approve 24.4%
Approve somewhat 27.1%
Disapprove somewhat 14%
Strongly disapprove 13%
Neither approve nor disapprove 18.1%

Internet providers should enforce a 'three strike' rule.
Strongly approve 25.9%
Approve somewhat 26.5%
Disapprove somewhat 12.3%
Strongly disapprove 21.3%
Neither approve nor disapprove 10.8%

Online users should be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing
Strongly approve 7.3%
Approve somewhat 12.8%
Disapprove somewhat 13%
Strongly disapprove 52.7%
Neither approve nor disapprove 8.7%
lizziec: (acid)
Today the NHS turns 60, and I want to wish it a very happy birthday and wish it well for the next 60. I know there are plenty of problems with it, I am not blinkered enough to say that there could not be improvements, but I believe that it is one of the greatest achievements of this country, especially in the post-World War II period. Here's why.

In 1900 (that's only 108 years ago) in this country:
* Life expectancy was below 50 years
* 163 out of every 1000 babies born died before they reached the age of 1 (that's 16.3%)
* The majority of families could not afford to see a doctor

The government refused to interfere as the emphasis at this point in time was on a "laissez-faire" country, meaning that things should be left to take their own course. It was believed that interference by the Government would strangle the economy, so generally people were left to sink or swim as they could. During the latter years of the 19th Century, and the early years of the 20th Century many reports began to come out which drew attention to the plight of the poor, which was reinforced by something of a recruitment crisis for the army during the Boer War. Of those who volunteered 35% (over a third) were rejected as medically unfit, generally because of problems related to poverty.

This changed in 1906 when the Liberal Party was elected, with David Lloyd George as their Chancellor of the Exchequor, and what followed was a package of reforms that ultimately led to a constitutional crisis. The reforms included the setting up of Old Age Pensions, free school meals (which went quite some way to tackling malnutrition among the poor), slum clearance programmes and Labour Exchanges (see here for more information).

The most pertinent reform to what I'm discussing today was the 1911 National Health Insurance act, which brought in various safeguards for those in employment who could afford to contribute to a scheme, which would then pay for them to go see a doctor if ill, and pay a small sum every week if the contributor were unemployed or unable to work. The government paid a sum to the scheme, as did the employer. The limitations of this scheme were numerous. It only covered those able to work, which at this period were mostly men, and even then the only hospitalisation it payed for was sanitorium treatment for TB. It did not cover those earning too little to be able to afford to contribute, children, the elderly, women, and those who were chronically and mentally ill. As a result, many still relied on the quack remedies that they had done before the scheme came in to force. The sad truth was that despite the advances in Medicine that had taken place, most people could not access it. The major problems with NHI showed themselves in the 1930s during the Great Depression when so many were out of work, and so many accounts in arrears (upwards of 4 million) that the companies running the schemes made no profit, which was compounded when the government reduced its contribution.

The turning point came with the Second World War. The Government were in possession of some rather terrifying figures about expected casualty rates as a result of any enemy bombing action, which thankfully never came to pass, though the Government did not know this at the start of the war. Expected Casualties (because I found this during my dissertation research and I think it's really interesting) ) As a result the Government planned various strategies to deal with the expected casualties (including a stockpile of cardboard coffins). The one relevant to this "History of the NHS", is the Emergency Hospital Scheme, which was funded and run by the Government and was "designed to serve the purpose of a moment" - to look after those injured in the war, especially bombing victims. Under this scheme any treatment needed, including hospitalisation, was free. It was during this period, in 1942, the the Beveridge Report was published which proposed a "free national health service" as a way of combating the five 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. The Conservatives, who nominally had the majority in the Commons at this time (though there was actually a "Government of National Unity" in power) refused to commit to putting in place the reforms, which was one of the reasons why they were beaten so comprehensively by the Labour party in the 1945 General Election. One of their first acts when they got in to power was the 1946 National Health Service Act, which provided in law for a free and comprehensive health care system.

The first day of this National Health Service was to be 5th July 1948 but there was an enormous amount of work that had to take place before it could start, including the nationalisation of Hospitals, the creation of health centres, the better/fairer distribution of doctors around the country and the creation of a new salary structure. On top of all this work, there was a huge amount of opposition (as with any large and sudden change). Most Local Authorities and Charitable Organisations who had previously run hospitals were opposed, as were doctors, who did not want to be employed by the government, or told where to work. In fact, at the beginning of 1948 90% of doctors said that they would not co-operate with the NHS. There was also opposition from many who were scared by the huge costs involved, but Aneurin Bevan who was Minister for Health at this time argued that Britain could afford it, and had to afford it. Bevan worked extremely hard to ensure the creation of the NHS, and by hook or by crook (he allowed doctors to work for the NHS and keep private patients while getting the public to sign up with doctors for the NHS - if a doctor didn't sign the form, he risked losing the patient [and the funding that came with them] to a doctor who would), made sure that over 90% of doctors had signed up by the opening day.

The benefits of the NHS were visible very quickly, especially in those groups which had not been covered until its creation. Maternal and infant mortality levels fell very quickly and life expectancy rose, especially as the new techniques and drugs (such as Penicillin) became available at no cost to people who would have died for want of them.

In 2008 we're looking at:
* An average life expectancy of 77 years, with more and more living until 100.
* An average of 5.2 out of every 1000 babies dying before the age of 1 (0.52%) [figures from 2006]
* Everyone can see a doctor, irrespective of whether they can pay

What I'm trying to say in an incredibly long winded way is that the NHS may not be perfect, but in comparison to what we have had before it is amazing, and I sometimes think we lose sight of just how brilliant it is amongst all the complaining about the things that are wrong and the compromises that sometimes have to be made.

My dad was chronically ill with Type 1 Diabetes most of his life, and we did not have to pay towards his care. His final illness and the two weeks spent in intensive care did not bankrupt us. My sister was born 15 weeks prematurely and spent her 16 hours of life receiving the best care available in 1982, and my parents were not left with a crippling bill as well as a dead daughter. When my mum hurt her back and she was in bed for 6 weeks her care (a physio, home help twice a day, doctors visits, nurse visits) did not cost us. When my mum was pregnant with me and was kept in hospital for most of those 9 months my parents did not have to check her out because they were worried about the cost, nor did they have to worry about the bill they were getting at the end. When I was ill with depression I did not have to worry about the cost of my prescriptions or my counselling. The times Phil has injured himself we have not had to worry about the bill from the Hospital for getting him checked out. Ben and I have not had to worry that while I've been off work I've been without coverage for my health (or traded electricity/food/rent for insurance coverage).

I think there's a lot to be said for that. So Happy Birthday NHS, here's to many many more.

ETA: Pretty much 1500 words. I wrote as much as that in some of my degree essays. Sorry guys!

ETA2 (2011): Since I wrote this my mum died from a rare form of Cancer. Her care was second to none and nothing was denied her on grounds of cost. We were not left with crippling bills, and not having to worry about finding money for her care made her last weeks and days easier for everyone.

lizziec: (acid)
Today the NHS turns 60, and I want to wish it a very happy birthday and wish it well for the next 60. I know there are plenty of problems with it, I am not blinkered enough to say that there could not be improvements, but I believe that it is one of the greatest achievements of this country, especially in the post-World War II period. Here's why.

In 1900 (that's only 108 years ago) in this country:
* Life expectancy was below 50 years
* 163 out of every 1000 babies born died before they reached the age of 1 (that's 16.3%)
* The majority of families could not afford to see a doctor

The government refused to interfere as the emphasis at this point in time was on a "laissez-faire" country, meaning that things should be left to take their own course. It was believed that interference by the Government would strangle the economy, so generally people were left to sink or swim as they could. During the latter years of the 19th Century, and the early years of the 20th Century many reports began to come out which drew attention to the plight of the poor, which was reinforced by something of a recruitment crisis for the army during the Boer War. Of those who volunteered 35% (over a third) were rejected as medically unfit, generally because of problems related to poverty.

This changed in 1906 when the Liberal Party was elected, with David Lloyd George as their Chancellor of the Exchequor, and what followed was a package of reforms that ultimately led to a constitutional crisis. The reforms included the setting up of Old Age Pensions, free school meals (which went quite some way to tackling malnutrition among the poor), slum clearance programmes and Labour Exchanges (see here for more information).

The most pertinent reform to what I'm discussing today was the 1911 National Health Insurance act, which brought in various safeguards for those in employment who could afford to contribute to a scheme, which would then pay for them to go see a doctor if ill, and pay a small sum every week if the contributor were unemployed or unable to work. The government paid a sum to the scheme, as did the employer. The limitations of this scheme were numerous. It only covered those able to work, which at this period were mostly men, and even then the only hospitalisation it payed for was sanitorium treatment for TB. It did not cover those earning too little to be able to afford to contribute, children, the elderly, women, and those who were chronically and mentally ill. As a result, many still relied on the quack remedies that they had done before the scheme came in to force. The sad truth was that despite the advances in Medicine that had taken place, most people could not access it. The major problems with NHI showed themselves in the 1930s during the Great Depression when so many were out of work, and so many accounts in arrears (upwards of 4 million) that the companies running the schemes made no profit, which was compounded when the government reduced its contribution.

The turning point came with the Second World War. The Government were in possession of some rather terrifying figures about expected casualty rates as a result of any enemy bombing action, which thankfully never came to pass, though the Government did not know this at the start of the war. Expected Casualties (because I found this during my dissertation research and I think it's really interesting) ) As a result the Government planned various strategies to deal with the expected casualties (including a stockpile of cardboard coffins). The one relevant to this "History of the NHS", is the Emergency Hospital Scheme, which was funded and run by the Government and was "designed to serve the purpose of a moment" - to look after those injured in the war, especially bombing victims. Under this scheme any treatment needed, including hospitalisation, was free. It was during this period, in 1942, the the Beveridge Report was published which proposed a "free national health service" as a way of combating the five 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. The Conservatives, who nominally had the majority in the Commons at this time (though there was actually a "Government of National Unity" in power) refused to commit to putting in place the reforms, which was one of the reasons why they were beaten so comprehensively by the Labour party in the 1945 General Election. One of their first acts when they got in to power was the 1946 National Health Service Act, which provided in law for a free and comprehensive health care system.

The first day of this National Health Service was to be 5th July 1948 but there was an enormous amount of work that had to take place before it could start, including the nationalisation of Hospitals, the creation of health centres, the better/fairer distribution of doctors around the country and the creation of a new salary structure. On top of all this work, there was a huge amount of opposition (as with any large and sudden change). Most Local Authorities and Charitable Organisations who had previously run hospitals were opposed, as were doctors, who did not want to be employed by the government, or told where to work. In fact, at the beginning of 1948 90% of doctors said that they would not co-operate with the NHS. There was also opposition from many who were scared by the huge costs involved, but Aneurin Bevan who was Minister for Health at this time argued that Britain could afford it, and had to afford it. Bevan worked extremely hard to ensure the creation of the NHS, and by hook or by crook (he allowed doctors to work for the NHS and keep private patients while getting the public to sign up with doctors for the NHS - if a doctor didn't sign the form, he risked losing the patient [and the funding that came with them] to a doctor who would), made sure that over 90% of doctors had signed up by the opening day.

The benefits of the NHS were visible very quickly, especially in those groups which had not been covered until its creation. Maternal and infant mortality levels fell very quickly and life expectancy rose, especially as the new techniques and drugs (such as Penicillin) became available at no cost to people who would have died for want of them.

In 2008 we're looking at:
* An average life expectancy of 77 years, with more and more living until 100.
* An average of 5.2 out of every 1000 babies dying before the age of 1 (0.52%) [figures from 2006]
* Everyone can see a doctor, irrespective of whether they can pay

What I'm trying to say in an incredibly long winded way is that the NHS may not be perfect, but in comparison to what we have had before it is amazing, and I sometimes think we lose sight of just how brilliant it is amongst all the complaining about the things that are wrong and the compromises that sometimes have to be made.

My dad was chronically ill with Type 1 Diabetes most of his life, and we did not have to pay towards his care. His final illness and the two weeks spent in intensive care did not bankrupt us. My sister was born 15 weeks prematurely and spent her 16 hours of life receiving the best care available in 1982, and my parents were not left with a crippling bill as well as a dead daughter. When my mum hurt her back and she was in bed for 6 weeks her care (a physio, home help twice a day, doctors visits, nurse visits) did not cost us. When my mum was pregnant with me and was kept in hospital for most of those 9 months my parents did not have to check her out because they were worried about the cost, nor did they have to worry about the bill they were getting at the end. When I was ill with depression I did not have to worry about the cost of my prescriptions or my counselling. The times Phil has injured himself we have not had to worry about the bill from the Hospital for getting him checked out. Ben and I have not had to worry that while I've been off work I've been without coverage for my health (or traded electricity/food/rent for insurance coverage).

I think there's a lot to be said for that. So Happy Birthday NHS, here's to many many more.

ETA: Pretty much 1500 words. I wrote as much as that in some of my degree essays. Sorry guys!

ETA2 (2011): Since I wrote this my mum died from a rare form of Cancer. Her care was second to none and nothing was denied her on grounds of cost. We were not left with crippling bills, and not having to worry about finding money for her care made her last weeks and days easier for everyone.

lizziec: (acid)
Today the NHS turns 60, and I want to wish it a very happy birthday and wish it well for the next 60. I know there are plenty of problems with it, I am not blinkered enough to say that there could not be improvements, but I believe that it is one of the greatest achievements of this country, especially in the post-World War II period. Here's why.

In 1900 (that's only 108 years ago) in this country:
* Life expectancy was below 50 years
* 163 out of every 1000 babies born died before they reached the age of 1 (that's 16.3%)
* The majority of families could not afford to see a doctor

The government refused to interfere as the emphasis at this point in time was on a "laissez-faire" country, meaning that things should be left to take their own course. It was believed that interference by the Government would strangle the economy, so generally people were left to sink or swim as they could. During the latter years of the 19th Century, and the early years of the 20th Century many reports began to come out which drew attention to the plight of the poor, which was reinforced by something of a recruitment crisis for the army during the Boer War. Of those who volunteered 35% (over a third) were rejected as medically unfit, generally because of problems related to poverty.

This changed in 1906 when the Liberal Party was elected, with David Lloyd George as their Chancellor of the Exchequor, and what followed was a package of reforms that ultimately led to a constitutional crisis. The reforms included the setting up of Old Age Pensions, free school meals (which went quite some way to tackling malnutrition among the poor), slum clearance programmes and Labour Exchanges (see here for more information).

The most pertinent reform to what I'm discussing today was the 1911 National Health Insurance act, which brought in various safeguards for those in employment who could afford to contribute to a scheme, which would then pay for them to go see a doctor if ill, and pay a small sum every week if the contributor were unemployed or unable to work. The government paid a sum to the scheme, as did the employer. The limitations of this scheme were numerous. It only covered those able to work, which at this period were mostly men, and even then the only hospitalisation it payed for was sanitorium treatment for TB. It did not cover those earning too little to be able to afford to contribute, children, the elderly, women, and those who were chronically and mentally ill. As a result, many still relied on the quack remedies that they had done before the scheme came in to force. The sad truth was that despite the advances in Medicine that had taken place, most people could not access it. The major problems with NHI showed themselves in the 1930s during the Great Depression when so many were out of work, and so many accounts in arrears (upwards of 4 million) that the companies running the schemes made no profit, which was compounded when the government reduced its contribution.

The turning point came with the Second World War. The Government were in possession of some rather terrifying figures about expected casualty rates as a result of any enemy bombing action, which thankfully never came to pass, though the Government did not know this at the start of the war. Expected Casualties (because I found this during my dissertation research and I think it's really interesting) ) As a result the Government planned various strategies to deal with the expected casualties (including a stockpile of cardboard coffins). The one relevant to this "History of the NHS", is the Emergency Hospital Scheme, which was funded and run by the Government and was "designed to serve the purpose of a moment" - to look after those injured in the war, especially bombing victims. Under this scheme any treatment needed, including hospitalisation, was free. It was during this period, in 1942, the the Beveridge Report was published which proposed a "free national health service" as a way of combating the five 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. The Conservatives, who nominally had the majority in the Commons at this time (though there was actually a "Government of National Unity" in power) refused to commit to putting in place the reforms, which was one of the reasons why they were beaten so comprehensively by the Labour party in the 1945 General Election. One of their first acts when they got in to power was the 1946 National Health Service Act, which provided in law for a free and comprehensive health care system.

The first day of this National Health Service was to be 5th July 1948 but there was an enormous amount of work that had to take place before it could start, including the nationalisation of Hospitals, the creation of health centres, the better/fairer distribution of doctors around the country and the creation of a new salary structure. On top of all this work, there was a huge amount of opposition (as with any large and sudden change). Most Local Authorities and Charitable Organisations who had previously run hospitals were opposed, as were doctors, who did not want to be employed by the government, or told where to work. In fact, at the beginning of 1948 90% of doctors said that they would not co-operate with the NHS. There was also opposition from many who were scared by the huge costs involved, but Aneurin Bevan who was Minister for Health at this time argued that Britain could afford it, and had to afford it. Bevan worked extremely hard to ensure the creation of the NHS, and by hook or by crook (he allowed doctors to work for the NHS and keep private patients while getting the public to sign up with doctors for the NHS - if a doctor didn't sign the form, he risked losing the patient [and the funding that came with them] to a doctor who would), made sure that over 90% of doctors had signed up by the opening day.

The benefits of the NHS were visible very quickly, especially in those groups which had not been covered until its creation. Maternal and infant mortality levels fell very quickly and life expectancy rose, especially as the new techniques and drugs (such as Penicillin) became available at no cost to people who would have died for want of them.

In 2008 we're looking at:
* An average life expectancy of 77 years, with more and more living until 100.
* An average of 5.2 out of every 1000 babies dying before the age of 1 (0.52%) [figures from 2006]
* Everyone can see a doctor, irrespective of whether they can pay

What I'm trying to say in an incredibly long winded way is that the NHS may not be perfect, but in comparison to what we have had before it is amazing, and I sometimes think we lose sight of just how brilliant it is amongst all the complaining about the things that are wrong and the compromises that sometimes have to be made.

My dad was chronically ill with Type 1 Diabetes most of his life, and we did not have to pay towards his care. His final illness and the two weeks spent in intensive care did not bankrupt us. My sister was born 15 weeks prematurely and spent her 16 hours of life receiving the best care available in 1982, and my parents were not left with a crippling bill as well as a dead daughter. When my mum hurt her back and she was in bed for 6 weeks her care (a physio, home help twice a day, doctors visits, nurse visits) did not cost us. When my mum was pregnant with me and was kept in hospital for most of those 9 months my parents did not have to check her out because they were worried about the cost, nor did they have to worry about the bill they were getting at the end. When I was ill with depression I did not have to worry about the cost of my prescriptions or my counselling. The times Phil has injured himself we have not had to worry about the bill from the Hospital for getting him checked out. Ben and I have not had to worry that while I've been off work I've been without coverage for my health (or traded electricity/food/rent for insurance coverage).

I think there's a lot to be said for that. So Happy Birthday NHS, here's to many many more.

ETA: Pretty much 1500 words. I wrote as much as that in some of my degree essays. Sorry guys!

ETA2 (2011): Since I wrote this my mum died from a rare form of Cancer. Her care was second to none and nothing was denied her on grounds of cost. We were not left with crippling bills, and not having to worry about finding money for her care made her last weeks and days easier for everyone.
lizziec: (apod - milky-way eating)
I'm curious about my f-list's opinions on this because I don't really know where I stand. On one of my exmormon mailing lists there's currently a rather heated discussion about Male Circumcision, which some of the posters are calling Male Genital Mutilation. Are they being over the top, or is male circumcision Male Genital Mutilation? There is no doubt that female "circumcision" is mutilation, but I am really not sure where I stand on the male circumcision thing. Is it the same or similar? If it's different, why/how is it different (not talking about the technique itself, but about its perception etc)? Is it not really mutilation at all?

I know it sounds like an odd question, but I'd really appreciate your comments and thoughts on this.
lizziec: (apod - milky-way eating)
I'm curious about my f-list's opinions on this because I don't really know where I stand. On one of my exmormon mailing lists there's currently a rather heated discussion about Male Circumcision, which some of the posters are calling Male Genital Mutilation. Are they being over the top, or is male circumcision Male Genital Mutilation? There is no doubt that female "circumcision" is mutilation, but I am really not sure where I stand on the male circumcision thing. Is it the same or similar? If it's different, why/how is it different (not talking about the technique itself, but about its perception etc)? Is it not really mutilation at all?

I know it sounds like an odd question, but I'd really appreciate your comments and thoughts on this.
lizziec: (apod - milky-way eating)
I'm curious about my f-list's opinions on this because I don't really know where I stand. On one of my exmormon mailing lists there's currently a rather heated discussion about Male Circumcision, which some of the posters are calling Male Genital Mutilation. Are they being over the top, or is male circumcision Male Genital Mutilation? There is no doubt that female "circumcision" is mutilation, but I am really not sure where I stand on the male circumcision thing. Is it the same or similar? If it's different, why/how is it different (not talking about the technique itself, but about its perception etc)? Is it not really mutilation at all?

I know it sounds like an odd question, but I'd really appreciate your comments and thoughts on this.
lizziec: (npower - orbs wot ben made for me)
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day and I was reflecting on my drive back from Sainsbury's that I have real issues with this day being a "thing". The reason it is today is to coincide with the day that Auschwitz was liberated. That this is commemorated is not really the problem I have - it should be remembered. The issue I have is with there being a "Holocaust Memorial Day" in which everyone is told to remember the holocaust. The focus is on the Holocaust, and specifically (at least in the media) the Jewish element of it. Which in some ways it is fine - after all, the Jews were overwhelmingly the victims of the nazi mass murder policy, but millions of other people were also murdered during the Holocaust, including 3 million gentile Poles, not to mention the millions of Soviet "prisoners of war" and other soviet citizens (edit: an estimate found on an article on genocide on wikipedia suggest that between 16 and 17mn deaths attributable to the Nazis genocides in WWII of which 6-7mn are Jewish link). I feel a greater mention should be made of those.

My main problem though is that I feel it should be called Genocide memorial day. A number of quotes about HMD is that it's about action - remembering other genocides, thinking about racism and prejudice that still happens. If that is the case I feel it would be better served by being called Genocide Memorial Day, so that the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide and Darfur (among many others that have happened or are happening but that I cannot think of by name edit: Ben found a list on wikipedia), yet the focus is not on these others that have happened or are happening.

I dunno, that's what I think in a rather disorganised way. Hope I don't come across as Anti-Semitic, because that is not how I mean my comments. Argh. It's a subject that's irritating me a lot at the moment but is hard to talk about without sounding like a complete arse hole.
lizziec: (npower - orbs wot ben made for me)
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day and I was reflecting on my drive back from Sainsbury's that I have real issues with this day being a "thing". The reason it is today is to coincide with the day that Auschwitz was liberated. That this is commemorated is not really the problem I have - it should be remembered. The issue I have is with there being a "Holocaust Memorial Day" in which everyone is told to remember the holocaust. The focus is on the Holocaust, and specifically (at least in the media) the Jewish element of it. Which in some ways it is fine - after all, the Jews were overwhelmingly the victims of the nazi mass murder policy, but millions of other people were also murdered during the Holocaust, including 3 million gentile Poles, not to mention the millions of Soviet "prisoners of war" and other soviet citizens (edit: an estimate found on an article on genocide on wikipedia suggest that between 16 and 17mn deaths attributable to the Nazis genocides in WWII of which 6-7mn are Jewish link). I feel a greater mention should be made of those.

My main problem though is that I feel it should be called Genocide memorial day. A number of quotes about HMD is that it's about action - remembering other genocides, thinking about racism and prejudice that still happens. If that is the case I feel it would be better served by being called Genocide Memorial Day, so that the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide and Darfur (among many others that have happened or are happening but that I cannot think of by name edit: Ben found a list on wikipedia), yet the focus is not on these others that have happened or are happening.

I dunno, that's what I think in a rather disorganised way. Hope I don't come across as Anti-Semitic, because that is not how I mean my comments. Argh. It's a subject that's irritating me a lot at the moment but is hard to talk about without sounding like a complete arse hole.
lizziec: (npower - orbs wot ben made for me)
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day and I was reflecting on my drive back from Sainsbury's that I have real issues with this day being a "thing". The reason it is today is to coincide with the day that Auschwitz was liberated. That this is commemorated is not really the problem I have - it should be remembered. The issue I have is with there being a "Holocaust Memorial Day" in which everyone is told to remember the holocaust. The focus is on the Holocaust, and specifically (at least in the media) the Jewish element of it. Which in some ways it is fine - after all, the Jews were overwhelmingly the victims of the nazi mass murder policy, but millions of other people were also murdered during the Holocaust, including 3 million gentile Poles, not to mention the millions of Soviet "prisoners of war" and other soviet citizens (edit: an estimate found on an article on genocide on wikipedia suggest that between 16 and 17mn deaths attributable to the Nazis genocides in WWII of which 6-7mn are Jewish link). I feel a greater mention should be made of those.

My main problem though is that I feel it should be called Genocide memorial day. A number of quotes about HMD is that it's about action - remembering other genocides, thinking about racism and prejudice that still happens. If that is the case I feel it would be better served by being called Genocide Memorial Day, so that the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide and Darfur (among many others that have happened or are happening but that I cannot think of by name edit: Ben found a list on wikipedia), yet the focus is not on these others that have happened or are happening.

I dunno, that's what I think in a rather disorganised way. Hope I don't come across as Anti-Semitic, because that is not how I mean my comments. Argh. It's a subject that's irritating me a lot at the moment but is hard to talk about without sounding like a complete arse hole.
lizziec: (potterpuffs - Tonks)
(or, I hope that medical professionals have more boring lives than their fictional counterparts)

I came home yesterday after my appointment with my doctor and counsellor and watched an episode of Holby City because I had nothing better to do. As I watched I found myself hoping beyond hope that real doctors have very dull lives, for the sake of my health and that of those around me. The reason for this was the storyline:

Doctor A has a gambling problem and has to borrow money from Doctor B (who has a crush on Dr D). At this point Doctor A's son (who is in medical school) comes in with Pneumonia brought on by his Heroin use requiring an operation (or his heart will go septic or something), and is about to be operated on by Doctor C, who has recently had brain surgery to control his parkinsons, but just as the patient is going south the parkinsons reasserts itself and Doctor C has to bow out, to be replaced by Doctor D, who is an alcoholic and thinking only of his romantic problems with his therapist, Doctor E, who is about to go to new york. The Anesthetist, Doctor F has just come off suspension having been falsely accused of rape by a patient. Eventually, despite all these problems, the patient survives to use heroin another day, while Dr A continues to gamble his life away, Dr B continues to mope after Dr D, who has run off to New York with Dr E and Dr C finds out his father has just died.

The "B" plot is just as ridiculous (Dr G is having an affair with his mother in law [a secretary at the hospital], shortly after his wife [a sister on another ward] has delivered their stillborn baby...).

All this led me to hope that my drs and other medical professionals with anything to do with me live in dull houses in suburbia, doing nothing in the evenings at all. Luckily I have a sense of perspective - I know that people don't really have lives like that...

Do they?

Typing speed meme )

What my name means )

lizziec: (potterpuffs - Tonks)
(or, I hope that medical professionals have more boring lives than their fictional counterparts)

I came home yesterday after my appointment with my doctor and counsellor and watched an episode of Holby City because I had nothing better to do. As I watched I found myself hoping beyond hope that real doctors have very dull lives, for the sake of my health and that of those around me. The reason for this was the storyline:

Doctor A has a gambling problem and has to borrow money from Doctor B (who has a crush on Dr D). At this point Doctor A's son (who is in medical school) comes in with Pneumonia brought on by his Heroin use requiring an operation (or his heart will go septic or something), and is about to be operated on by Doctor C, who has recently had brain surgery to control his parkinsons, but just as the patient is going south the parkinsons reasserts itself and Doctor C has to bow out, to be replaced by Doctor D, who is an alcoholic and thinking only of his romantic problems with his therapist, Doctor E, who is about to go to new york. The Anesthetist, Doctor F has just come off suspension having been falsely accused of rape by a patient. Eventually, despite all these problems, the patient survives to use heroin another day, while Dr A continues to gamble his life away, Dr B continues to mope after Dr D, who has run off to New York with Dr E and Dr C finds out his father has just died.

The "B" plot is just as ridiculous (Dr G is having an affair with his mother in law [a secretary at the hospital], shortly after his wife [a sister on another ward] has delivered their stillborn baby...).

All this led me to hope that my drs and other medical professionals with anything to do with me live in dull houses in suburbia, doing nothing in the evenings at all. Luckily I have a sense of perspective - I know that people don't really have lives like that...

Do they?

Typing speed meme )

What my name means )

lizziec: (potterpuffs - Tonks)
(or, I hope that medical professionals have more boring lives than their fictional counterparts)

I came home yesterday after my appointment with my doctor and counsellor and watched an episode of Holby City because I had nothing better to do. As I watched I found myself hoping beyond hope that real doctors have very dull lives, for the sake of my health and that of those around me. The reason for this was the storyline:

Doctor A has a gambling problem and has to borrow money from Doctor B (who has a crush on Dr D). At this point Doctor A's son (who is in medical school) comes in with Pneumonia brought on by his Heroin use requiring an operation (or his heart will go septic or something), and is about to be operated on by Doctor C, who has recently had brain surgery to control his parkinsons, but just as the patient is going south the parkinsons reasserts itself and Doctor C has to bow out, to be replaced by Doctor D, who is an alcoholic and thinking only of his romantic problems with his therapist, Doctor E, who is about to go to new york. The Anesthetist, Doctor F has just come off suspension having been falsely accused of rape by a patient. Eventually, despite all these problems, the patient survives to use heroin another day, while Dr A continues to gamble his life away, Dr B continues to mope after Dr D, who has run off to New York with Dr E and Dr C finds out his father has just died.

The "B" plot is just as ridiculous (Dr G is having an affair with his mother in law [a secretary at the hospital], shortly after his wife [a sister on another ward] has delivered their stillborn baby...).

All this led me to hope that my drs and other medical professionals with anything to do with me live in dull houses in suburbia, doing nothing in the evenings at all. Luckily I have a sense of perspective - I know that people don't really have lives like that...

Do they?

Typing speed meme )

What my name means )
lizziec: (owl)
Given the story on the BBC website yesterday, and the Breakfast News this morning about a student's rent costing more than his loan (before his fees are factored in I believe...) I really shouldn't have been surprised that the BBC have opened up a Have Your Say discussion on the issue.

What always makes interesting reading here are the reader's recommended comments [think something like /.'s threshold system] on any matter on this site and reading the most popular one so far has made me very angry and frustrated.

Mr Roy Jones from Manchester has had the most reccommendations for his comments which run thus: "Poor students!! Many of whom's parents are filthy rich, many students spend 95% of their time socialising, most get higher than average paid jobs etc. The students in my area (Manchester University) are always drunk and anti-social, littering and trashing their rented accomadation and causing a nuisance to neighbours. If whinging students cleared their own act up perhaps people would have more empathy even taking into account student's general wealthy background and likely wealthy future."

Grr. It's certainly not the case of most of those people I went to University with and not the case of Phil who is there now. Incidentally his loan barely covers his rent and fees (well done Greenwich). I only really got through Uni cos of my part time job. I couldn't have afforded it otherwise. I worked two summers, which was the only way to pay Uni what I owed them from my first year when I couldn't afford my fees and rent because my LEA cocked up my assessment. Let's not even mention my maxed out student overdraft.

Does Mr Roy Jones' comment really reflect how people see students? Wealthy, anti-social and likely to be more wealthy in the future? What planet do they live on?

Now I'm upset and angry. People clearly just don't understand.

X-posted to [livejournal.com profile] ukc and [livejournal.com profile] canterbunnies
lizziec: (toys - monkey rocker)
A sketch in BBC One comedy Little Britain which showed a woman urinating uncontrollably in a shop has been criticised by an incontinence charity.

Saw that coming as soon as I knew which new characters would be appearing. Not surprised at all ;) Hvae to say I agree much more with the charity than with the BBC who state that "the sketch was not offensive as it was not grounded in reality."

Hmm.
lizziec: (Default)
I have been prompted to post this morning by the case of Terri Schiavo, (and here and here) a woman in the US who has been in a persistent vegetative state since 1990. Her husband who is her legal guardian wants her to be allowed to die with dignity and has been fighting since 1998 for her feeding tube to be removed. He has been successful on three occasions (including this last one) and twice the decision has been overturned by those on the opposite side, Mrs Schiavo's parents and siblings because they:
"believe she can still lead a fulfilling life".


My take on it is that if there is anything left of this woman, she is trapped, unable to do anything inside this shell of a body. I don't think being trapped like that is in anyway a meaningful existance and I think she should be allowed to die.

It is a difficult decision for people to make and the law courts have constantly approved Mr Schiavo's wishes. I do not think that Congress (overwhelmingly republican) should have got involved and certainly should not be passing laws to prevent it. It is government meddling gone mad, and the wrong people are being caught in the middle. Now we have intervention in this case what is to stop them from doing the same in other cases? Or even make abortion illegal again.*

I hope if anything like that happens to me the people who love me will allow me to die with dignity and not stay like that for fifteen years. It isn't a life. It may bring comfort to the family because in a bodily sense the person they love is not dead, but in my opinion they are worse than dead.

I have been told before that Greif is a selfish emotion, and I agree with it. It is an emotion for the living and not for the dead, one that doesn't take into account how much the dead person would have suffered if they had lived, just how much the living person wishes they hadn't died. I think the case of Mrs Schiavo is grief taken to its most extreme level of selfishness by the parents and siblings. In not wanting her to be dead they are denying her right to dignity, and trying to justify it by telling themselves and the world it is because they know she can have a meaningful existance.

I think that is just unfair to her.


*Abortion is something I don't think I could ever do, but I defend the right of women to it.
lizziec: (Default)
The article in question this time is about how the allies should have done more to bomb Auschwitz.

Basically the BBC are going over (again) whether the Allies could and should have bombed the death camp at Auschwitz during World War Two. THere is no doubt that the allies knew the purpose of the camp, there are numerous historical documents that testify to that fact. THe bit that annoys me is that it is History. It is in the past and the actions that were taken then could not be changed. Everyone has 20:20 vision in hindsight and it's very easy for a journalist writing now to say "this is what we should have done". Perhaps we should have, but the fact remains that we didn't. I'm also a little concerned that noone raises the possibility could have killed a majority of the prisoners interned there, as (though I am not by any means an expert) I am not aware of there being any sort of Air Raid Shelters for the population of the camp.

This isn't really very focussed. The main gist is (I think ;)) that I am annoyed of actions being taken 50, 100, 200 years in the past being re-examined in light of what we know now and the values we hold dear now. The world of the past was as confused as the present is to us now. Noone can know all of the facts at the time, they can just do the best job possible on the facts they have and it's not fair for them to be condemned in the future when we have all the facts, not only about the circumstances surrounding an event, but also the effects that a particular action had.

Hrm.

Sorry ;) Brain dump :P
lizziec: (Default)
The BBC are running a story on "gay history month" and are asking schools to take part in teaching the children about LGBT history. I've thought about it and I'm not sure I agree. I believe that children should be educated about LGBT stuff so that they don't grow up to be homophobes and I agree that violence and homophobic taunts are rife in schools, but I'm not convinced that focusing on history of a specific group like that is healthy. I believe if it's going to be included that it should be included in the course of normal history lessons as it comes up and shouldn't be something that is gone out of the way for.

Hrm. I'm not explaining myself very well. I hope I don't offend anyone. It's just that I don't feel that it is constructive to make such a huge thing about it all. Surely the best way of helping children realise it's all perfectly normal is acting* like it is rather than holding month long events to focus on it specifically.

To anyone I may have offended, I'm sorry :|

*In this sense of the word "acting" I mean "the act of doing something" not "the act of pretending something" Hope this clarifies my point there :)

September 2013

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 24 June 2017 10:28 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios