Indyref 2 (2)

[Alibi]

Seems to me that in England, where everything to do with the NHS seems to be worse than in Scotland, the media aren't calling incessantly for the resignation of the health secretary; in Scotland it's a different story with BBC Scotland in particular painting a tale of failure and crisis every day, even to the extent that they imply that the NHS in Scotland is doing worse than in England, Wales & NI, which is not the case.  Clear anti-SNP agenda.

[Malcolm]

28 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Seems to me that in England, where everything to do with the NHS seems to be worse than in Scotland, the media aren't calling incessantly for the resignation of the health secretary; in Scotland it's a different story with BBC Scotland in particular painting a tale of failure and crisis every day, even to the extent that they imply that the NHS in Scotland is doing worse than in England, Wales & NI, which is not the case.  Clear anti-SNP agenda.

rubbish.  The failure of the nhs in England is headline news on every channel every night at the moment.

[vanderark14]

35 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

rubbish.  The failure of the nhs in England is headline news on every channel every night at the moment.

Are they blaming the tories and the health Secretary ?

[phart]

2 hours ago, Alibi said:

Seems to me that in England, where everything to do with the NHS seems to be worse than in Scotland, the media aren't calling incessantly for the resignation of the health secretary; in Scotland it's a different story with BBC Scotland in particular painting a tale of failure and crisis every day, even to the extent that they imply that the NHS in Scotland is doing worse than in England, Wales & NI, which is not the case.  Clear anti-SNP agenda.

Another thread on it. Incidentally Mainwood is a former theoretical physicist working on the philosophy of physics. I know him cause he was the guy who managed to accurately predict vaccine numbers during the initial roll-out when no numbers were being produced by inferring them from about 9 different snippets of information and using that to estimate supplies.

 

I see by his latest thread that the politics crew have been in touch with him Short of it, Scotland performing even better against England than previously thought.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by phart

[ThistleWhistle]

21 hours ago, Orraloon said:

What is the new risk?

Any change of procedure introduces new risks as does a change that ramps up volume – it’s no longer the same risk it was before.  It’s a new risk too if you continue to use old recording methods that don’t reflect the change in the world around you as you’ll have absolutely no way of understanding what is going on. 

 

In terms of Scotland specifically, and an obvious example just to run through, an amendment to ban sex offenders from getting a GRC was voted down – top of the risk management pyramid of preferred outcomes is if the risk can be avoided.  Instead it was replaced with a requirement for a risk assessment raised by an SNP MSP (by definition you only need a risk assessment if you believe there is a risk) which means very little on the face of it without further information.  Has anything been published around what format it would be in; who is responsible for creating it; who makes the decisions at each stage and; what the various hoops are because that would be really interesting (being a sad bastard) to review.

 

Killamarsh murderer Damien Bendall was left free to kill after probation blunders (telegraph.co.uk)

 

There’s absolutely loads to pick through in this as an example of risk assessment failing but my immediate thoughts would be they’re spending 8-9 hours banging data into a risk assessment tool for it to provide an answer ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’.  Probably in the background it is working it out based on a 3x3 or 5x5 grid as part of the output but for me something like this would be better on a nuanced scoring system giving less scope for things just to fall into a catch-all ‘medium’ with specific procedural instruction for each banding rather than just blaming the operative fudging the system as that’s a system/procedural failure merely personified by the operative – they need to audit everyone rather than just them. 

 

Moving back to this what would those bandings look like and for example some basic questions:

Ø  up to what score would a sex offender get a GRC without further question

Ø  at what score, if any, are sex offenders definitely not getting a GRC

Ø  at what score, if any, is a medical report required confirming gender dysphoria before issuing a certificate rather than a sex offender chancing it

Ø  Who is responsible for signing off at each bracket on deciding the risk a sex offender posed in getting a certificate and what is the referral procedures upwards/ review mechanics downwards. 

Ø  What are the implications for a DBS check

 

DBS Checks for Transgender Applicants — Personnel Checks

Transgender applications - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

How Transgender Applicants Can Apply For DBS Checks (onlinedbschecks.co.uk)

 

It is possible to have previous convictions & cautions transferred to a new name if the individual has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate. The police will amend an individual’s records to reflect their new information; Previous names will be recorded on the police database but will not show on a DBS check. However, if you don’t have a Gender Recognition Certificate, you should still follow through by contacting the Sensitive Applications team for further information.

 

At what point does that happen automatically rather than relying on the person in question going to the police station to update their records before they apply for a DBS certificate? 

 

At what score, if any, do they lose the ability to the right to not having their ‘dead name’ provided to employers?

 

 

Current procedures are already sketchy as sex offenders are legally obliged to inform police when they change just their name.  Sky in 2020 reported about 1300 had done this in the UK already but they also found that, from the few forces responding to the second question, there were another 1,000 who’d gone missing (they’d changed name and not told them) – the five year threat of prison hadn’t deterred them so doubt 2 years for pretending to be a woman is going to deter them either even if it gets added on. 

 

The SNP themselves therefore have accepted the above is a risk but at the moment I’m not sure how this is being managed and am cynical of how it is being measured. 

 

It’s important to note too that if you can’t avoid the risk then you are accepting that you have to manage the risk and at each stage of the pyramid it gets more and more likely something may happen regardless of the proficiency of the system.  In the Hierarchy of Controls moving downwards:

 

Elimination – we’re already ascertained we’re not doing this

Substitution – We can’t replace the hazard

Engineering – Can we isolate people from the hazard? – we’re potentially doing the antithesis. 

Administrative controls – This is where the risk assessment output comes into play.

PPE:  Issuing women and girls with tasers and pepper spray if the above is unsuccessful?

[ThistleWhistle]

4 hours ago, phart said:

Health insurance has nothing to do with the factors at play here. It's ambulance waiting times which primary problem is social care which has been gutted during austerity. Moving to health insurance doesn't do anything for that.

The American model of health insurance has been destroying the middle-class there much more effectively than a 2% disparity in the middle band tax-rate here.

If it went down a health insurance model I'd probably get better cover through my company as benefits than I could afford personally.  It may even provide better coverage than I'd get through the NHS but I've seen more than enough insurers being shite bags around buildings, motor and professional advice claims to want them miles away from health - bottom line their main concern is the bottom line.  

From a financial perspective the average family in the States is $1,200 a month or $500 individually.  NI on a £50k salary is £5k a year so you'd need both parties earning that to get close to spending the equivalent in insurance.  

More importantly though, I don't believe my family and I should have access to better health provision than, for example, someone making the square root of fuck all caring for a family member or their elderly relative.  

I've no problem either in paying the extra income tax I am either (think it works out at c.2 weeks wage) so long as the service continues to be better than down south.  If it was worse my issue again wouldn't be around paying it but the monkeys in charge.  

The Israeli system, from a cursory read, seems to manage the public sector and private sector quite well.  It's public similar to the NHS but private providers, three from memory, tender for contracts so it helps avoid the bloated nature of a public body.    

Edited January 13, 2023 by ThistleWhistle

[Malcolm]

2 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

Are they blaming the tories and the health Secretary ?

Yep, Steve Barclay getting it tight just now and rightly so.

[Malcolm]

35 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

If it went down a health insurance model I'd probably get better cover through my company as benefits than I could afford personally.  It may even provide better coverage than I'd get through the NHS but I've seen more than enough insurers being shite bags around buildings, motor and professional advice claims to want them miles away from health - bottom line their main concern is the bottom line.  

From a financial perspective the average family in the States is $1,200 a month or $500 individually.  NI on a £50k salary is £5k a year so you'd need both parties earning that to get close to spending the equivalent in insurance.  

More importantly though, I don't believe my family and I should have access to better health provision than, for example, someone making the square root of fuck all caring for a family member or their elderly relative.  

I've no problem either in paying the extra income tax I am either (think it works out at c.2 weeks wage) so long as the service continues to be better than down south.  If it was worse my issue again wouldn't be around paying it but the monkeys in charge.  

The Israeli system, from a cursory read, seems to manage the public sector and private sector quite well.  It's public similar to the NHS but private providers, three from memory, tender for contracts so it helps avoid the bloated nature of a public body.    

but we all know that national insurance has no correlation to health and social care budge and is just another tax 😊

[aaid]

47 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

In terms of Scotland specifically, and an obvious example just to run through, an amendment to ban sex offenders from getting a GRC was voted down – top of the risk management pyramid of preferred outcomes is if the risk can be avoided.  Instead it was replaced with a requirement for a risk assessment raised by an SNP MSP (by definition you only need a risk assessment if you believe there is a risk) which means very little on the face of it without further information.  Has anything been published around what format it would be in; who is responsible for creating it; who makes the decisions at each stage and; what the various hoops are because that would be really interesting (being a sad bastard) to review.

The amendment introduced by - IIRC - Russell Findlay to outright ban people who were charged with a sexual offence from going through the GRC process would've been illegal under Human Rights legislation.   The amendment successfully moved by Gillian Martin which has the same effect as it meant that the police could intervene to stop that having carried out a risk assessment.  The key difference being an individual decision rather than a prohibition against everybody which means it would be competent.
 

[Malcolm]

53 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Any change of procedure introduces new risks as does a change that ramps up volume – it’s no longer the same risk it was before.  It’s a new risk too if you continue to use old recording methods that don’t reflect the change in the world around you as you’ll have absolutely no way of understanding what is going on. 

 

In terms of Scotland specifically, and an obvious example just to run through, an amendment to ban sex offenders from getting a GRC was voted down – top of the risk management pyramid of preferred outcomes is if the risk can be avoided.  Instead it was replaced with a requirement for a risk assessment raised by an SNP MSP (by definition you only need a risk assessment if you believe there is a risk) which means very little on the face of it without further information.  Has anything been published around what format it would be in; who is responsible for creating it; who makes the decisions at each stage and; what the various hoops are because that would be really interesting (being a sad bastard) to review.

 

Killamarsh murderer Damien Bendall was left free to kill after probation blunders (telegraph.co.uk)

 

There’s absolutely loads to pick through in this as an example of risk assessment failing but my immediate thoughts would be they’re spending 8-9 hours banging data into a risk assessment tool for it to provide an answer ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’.  Probably in the background it is working it out based on a 3x3 or 5x5 grid as part of the output but for me something like this would be better on a nuanced scoring system giving less scope for things just to fall into a catch-all ‘medium’ with specific procedural instruction for each banding rather than just blaming the operative fudging the system as that’s a system/procedural failure merely personified by the operative – they need to audit everyone rather than just them. 

 

Moving back to this what would those bandings look like and for example some basic questions:

Ø  up to what score would a sex offender get a GRC without further question

Ø  at what score, if any, are sex offenders definitely not getting a GRC

Ø  at what score, if any, is a medical report required confirming gender dysphoria before issuing a certificate rather than a sex offender chancing it

Ø  Who is responsible for signing off at each bracket on deciding the risk a sex offender posed in getting a certificate and what is the referral procedures upwards/ review mechanics downwards. 

Ø  What are the implications for a DBS check

 

DBS Checks for Transgender Applicants — Personnel Checks

Transgender applications - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

How Transgender Applicants Can Apply For DBS Checks (onlinedbschecks.co.uk)

 

It is possible to have previous convictions & cautions transferred to a new name if the individual has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate. The police will amend an individual’s records to reflect their new information; Previous names will be recorded on the police database but will not show on a DBS check. However, if you don’t have a Gender Recognition Certificate, you should still follow through by contacting the Sensitive Applications team for further information.

 

At what point does that happen automatically rather than relying on the person in question going to the police station to update their records before they apply for a DBS certificate? 

 

At what score, if any, do they lose the ability to the right to not having their ‘dead name’ provided to employers?

 

 

Current procedures are already sketchy as sex offenders are legally obliged to inform police when they change just their name.  Sky in 2020 reported about 1300 had done this in the UK already but they also found that, from the few forces responding to the second question, there were another 1,000 who’d gone missing (they’d changed name and not told them) – the five year threat of prison hadn’t deterred them so doubt 2 years for pretending to be a woman is going to deter them either even if it gets added on. 

 

The SNP themselves therefore have accepted the above is a risk but at the moment I’m not sure how this is being managed and am cynical of how it is being measured. 

 

It’s important to note too that if you can’t avoid the risk then you are accepting that you have to manage the risk and at each stage of the pyramid it gets more and more likely something may happen regardless of the proficiency of the system.  In the Hierarchy of Controls moving downwards:

 

Elimination – we’re already ascertained we’re not doing this

Substitution – We can’t replace the hazard

Engineering – Can we isolate people from the hazard? – we’re potentially doing the antithesis. 

Administrative controls – This is where the risk assessment output comes into play.

PPE:  Issuing women and girls with tasers and pepper spray if the above is unsuccessful?

sturgeon and harvie should be held personally and criminally accountable should there be any crimes committed as a result of this legislation.  E.g if a biological man acting as a women attacks a woman in a womens only safe space.

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Yep, Steve Barclay getting it tight just now and rightly so.

Who is calling for him to be sacked?

To be fair though, since Humza Yousaf took over the health brief in 2021, there have been 4 UK Health Secretaries with Barclay taking the role twice.

[ThistleWhistle]

10 minutes ago, aaid said:

The amendment introduced by - IIRC - Russell Findlay to outright ban people who were charged with a sexual offence from going through the GRC process would've been illegal under Human Rights legislation.   The amendment successfully moved by Gillian Martin which has the same effect as it meant that the police could intervene to stop that having carried out a risk assessment.  The key difference being an individual decision rather than a prohibition against everybody which means it would be competent.
 

For argument sake if Russell Findlay's outright ban had passed would it not be needed for a legal challenge to be made that it breaches the right of sex offenders?  Not sure there would be a massive queue to pick that case up.  

Accepting the amendment was successful to make it competent in law for the bill to pass doesn't mean the practicalities are going to be competent - the arsonist fella was risk assessed as 'amber' before he murdered as example and, awaiting the report, looks fairly obvious their system wasn't competent. 

When does the police intervening become 'would' rather than 'could', how is that triggered and what does it entail?

 

[Malcolm]

19 minutes ago, aaid said:

Who is calling for him to be sacked?

To be fair though, since Humza Yousaf took over the health brief in 2021, there have been 4 UK Health Secretaries with Barclay taking the role twice.

perhaps not calling for him to be sacked but he is under the microscope.  I wouldn’t do either job - impossible task.

[aaid]

22 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

perhaps not calling for him to be sacked but he is under the microscope.  I wouldn’t do either job - impossible task.

So your dealing with a false equivalence then.

[TDYER63]

On 1/12/2023 at 1:51 PM, ThistleWhistle said:

Self ID in Belgium; no news is good news

A wall of silence among journalists and institutions means the effects of self-ID are impossible to know

Róisín Michaux

Self ID in Belgium; no news is good news (substack.com)

 

You can't manage what isn't measured and if you're adding a new risk into things why would you not want to measure it so you can manage the new exposure, and review accordingly in seeking improvement?  

 

Yes, I agree with that . And it may very well be the case that information is being held back and therefore no being measured . But this is the word of one individual who I have never heard of, there could be a number of reasons why she could be getting ‘ no comment’ from various sources. 
You would think if there were numerous examples of trans sex crimes or general violence the victims or their family would be creating merry hell on social media .

However complacency is not an option. You cant just assume this. If I were her , and really believed there was a deliberate decision not to publish information on crimes, then I would be stirring up as much shit as I could to highlight this and get to the truth. 

There are however people who are just desperate for something to happen to prove their prejudices against trans is justified. 

 

[aaid]

3 hours ago, ThistleWhistle said:

For argument sake if Russell Findlay's outright ban had passed would it not be needed for a legal challenge to be made that it breaches the right of sex offenders?  Not sure there would be a massive queue to pick that case up.  

Accepting the amendment was successful to make it competent in law for the bill to pass doesn't mean the practicalities are going to be competent - the arsonist fella was risk assessed as 'amber' before he murdered as example and, awaiting the report, looks fairly obvious their system wasn't competent. 

When does the police intervening become 'would' rather than 'could', how is that triggered and what does it entail?

 

So maybe some who is accused of a serious offence should just be held on remand until such time as the case comes to court, which could be as long as two years just in case someone gets the risk assessment wrong and they reoffend.   

What this amendment was designed to address was the accused changing gender before the trial and by doing so intimidating the victim - forcing the victim to refer to the accused as she/her.  I concede that there was a likelihood that might have happened had this loophole not been closed.  The fact that it’s highly likely that anyone trying to do this would be blocked means it’s unlikely to occur in the real world. 

Whether someone convicted has a GRC or not has no bearing on which prison they go to.

[phart]

4 hours ago, ThistleWhistle said:

If it went down a health insurance model I'd probably get better cover through my company as benefits than I could afford personally.  It may even provide better coverage than I'd get through the NHS but I've seen more than enough insurers being shite bags around buildings, motor and professional advice claims to want them miles away from health - bottom line their main concern is the bottom line.  

From a financial perspective the average family in the States is $1,200 a month or $500 individually.  NI on a £50k salary is £5k a year so you'd need both parties earning that to get close to spending the equivalent in insurance.  

More importantly though, I don't believe my family and I should have access to better health provision than, for example, someone making the square root of fuck all caring for a family member or their elderly relative.  

I've no problem either in paying the extra income tax I am either (think it works out at c.2 weeks wage) so long as the service continues to be better than down south.  If it was worse my issue again wouldn't be around paying it but the monkeys in charge.  

The Israeli system, from a cursory read, seems to manage the public sector and private sector quite well.  It's public similar to the NHS but private providers, three from memory, tender for contracts so it helps avoid the bloated nature of a public body.    

If we're talking health care provision, rather than social care provision which is the primary driver of the ambulance problem, then i'm open to suggestions (not that its my decision but you know what I mean). Anything that can be done to improve the service is fine. However treating it as a new market for health care providers as private companies do, their duty of care is to renumerate shareholders as much as possible, and that's what the Tories and probably Labour will do. Or rather have been lobbied to do.

I was posting about ambulance times so everything I said was in that context.

Remember in USA folk pay for their asthma medicine or insulin as well in many cases.

 

[hampden_loon2878]

So Westminster blocks Indy ref 2 and are away to reject the legality of the GRA policy.

what will cause the biggest anguish to those running the SNP? 

[Malcolm]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

So maybe some who is accused of a serious offence should just be held on remand until such time as the case comes to court, which could be as long as two years just in case someone gets the risk assessment wrong and they reoffend.   

What this amendment was designed to address was the accused changing gender before the trial and by doing so intimidating the victim - forcing the victim to refer to the accused as she/her.  I concede that there was a likelihood that might have happened had this loophole not been closed.  The fact that it’s highly likely that anyone trying to do this would be blocked means it’s unlikely to occur in the real world. 

Whether someone convicted has a GRC or not has no bearing on which prison they go to.

if you are born a man, you should be off to a man’s prison.

[aaid]

Looks like Humza’s pulled a rabbit out of the hat, all health service Unions have agreed to suspend industrial action while talks continue to try and reach a deal.  Wee Dougie and Jackie Baillie will be raging. 

[Malcolm]

10 minutes ago, aaid said:

Looks like Humza’s pulled a rabbit out of the hat, all health service Unions have agreed to suspend industrial action while talks continue to try and reach a deal.  Wee Dougie and Jackie Baillie will be raging. 

Nobody’s going to be raging if we have a functioning health service.

[aaid]

48 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Nobody’s going to be raging if we have a functioning health service.

You think?

[Orraloon]

4 hours ago, Malcolm said:

if you are born a man, you should be off to a man’s prison.

Every man should be in prison????? FFS, even the most wokeist of the woke folk don't think that. Do they?

[Malcolm]

9 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Every man should be in prison????? FFS, even the most wokeist of the woke folk don't think that. Do they?

Fair enough… a bit harsh.  Only if they commit a crime… apart from Ross Greer - he should be in prison.

[TDYER63]

12 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Every man should be in prison????? FFS, even the most wokeist of the woke folk don't think that. Do they?

😂 he has a point. This might be something Malcolm and I actually agree on !