NHS news review

Spread the love

On a different topic: I’ve been looking at Cameron’s speech on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible intending to do an exegesis which quite possibly would be an exegesis of Cameron’s exegesis.

My attention was drawn to this speech by the widely reported soundbyte ~ He said “live and let live” had too often become “do what you please”. I recognise that as relating to something deeper than its superficial appearance.

The speech is obviously sucking up to Christians and is recieved well by them from a look at the comments. It’s an awfully tedious speech by David ‘Marvin‘ Cameron in which he makes some very dodgy assertions.

Marvin starts by suggesting that he’s in the lion’s den. It’s a reference to Daniel who survived the lion’s den unscathed. Some Christians are hardly lions now are they? I came across some Christians one Christmas day. I was collecting some friends by car for four-days-late Midwinter dinner. These Christians had just come out of a Cathedral and I stopped for them at a Zebra pedestrian crossing. I am usually patient, polite and considerate with pedestrians being a cyclist and motorcyclist as well being able to drive a car. One of these Christians was such a pain returning across the crossing that I wound down the window and shouted “F*****g Christians!” at them. Needlessly annoying motorists like children is hardly lion-like behaviour now is it? Not going to rip me to shreds with his fangs and claws and rip the flesh off my severed limbs is he?

Marvin talks in a confused way about ‘something’ and ‘anything’ without defining these terms and then using ‘something’ in an opposite sense. “You can’t fight something with nothing.” … “Because if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything.” It’s tedious vacuity.

So Marvin praises the language of the King James Bible. I’ve found it one of the nastiest translations actually. “It crystallises profound, sometimes complex, thoughts and suggests a depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page…” “depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page” is imagination and subjective so that it can’t be shared (discounting telepathic abilities). “…giving us something to share, to cherish, to celebrate.”

Marvin praises the contribution that the KJB has made to British society and culture, values and morals when really it’s just part of historic tradition.

Marvin says that we are a Christian country and should not be afraid to say so then goes on to qualify Christian country so that it is meaningless.

Christ, this speech is tedious bullshit. And what’s with the dot, dot, dot? …


[Corinthians 13:12 King James Version (KJV). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13 . A typically highly convoluted passage about love.]

Better find some NHS news.

We can’t allow the Bible to be hijacked for narrow and partisan politics | David Edgar | Comment is free | The Guardian

12.45 am edit

Committee members looking at implications of public bills say health secretary’s role should be made explicitly clear

The coalition government’s health bill will dilute accountability to parliament and the courts and should be amended to address serious constitutional issues that remain, a Lords committee has warned.

The committee examining the constitutional implications of public bills, chaired by Lady Jay, says the House of Lords will have to alter the health bill so that “ministerial responsibility” for the NHS is made “explicitly” clear.

Last month the government had been forced to hold up the part of its NHS bill dealing with the health secretary’s new role to stave off an embarrassing rebellion from a coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrat peers over the issue.

The health bill is expected to pass through committee stage, but will face a crunch vote on the issue in January.

Jay said: “It must be made clear in the bill that the secretary of state for health continues to be accountable for the provision of health services in England.

“This is vital to ensure parliament can properly scrutinise the NHS in the future.”

She warned that the bill at present leaves it unclear “on where the buck stops when health services are removed”, picking up on campaigners’ fears that the health secretary would be helpless to stop patient care disappearing from the NHS.

At the heart of the debate is the government’s plan to devolve its “constitutional responsibility” to provide NHS services to a quango and also, in the words of the white paper, “liberate” hospitals and GPs to decide what level of provision patients could expect.

This represents a significant shift. The health secretary has a legal duty to provide key NHS services, such as hospital accommodation, ambulances, maternity and nursing.




Leave a Reply