They were desperate at that point and everyone knew it.
Short rope, long drop.
This is hardly an isolated incident. A&E staff are attacked on a regular basis. Alcohol and psychiatric emergency are probably the major contributary factors.
As per another thread. Iāve spent many entertaining Friday evenings in Liverpool Royalās A&E department. The benefits that could have been done to humanity with a bolt gun. The prisoners were the worst, fuck me.
Iād add that people have bevome a whole load more impatient and waiting really doesnt go well with that.
I misread that as pensioners to begin withā¦
I have a friend who has been working in A&E for 30 years. He was an army paramedic before and went into nursing training after the Gulf War. I think his military training does come in useful, but it is more a case that he can spot when patients are having a breakdown.
I donāt think itās a job for the faint-hearted.
Some donāt seem to understand triage. I once had to go into A&E on New Yearās Day after breaking my arm falling on ice. Iād say that 90% of the people there were basically just pissed. They advertised a 4 hour wait time, but I was seen within 30 minutes. The woman who came in after me with pneumonia was rushed straight into a ward.
This did make one drunk with a black eye somewhat agitated.
Apparently, in the Liverpool Royal Hosp last week in the A&E, there was a 91hr waitā¦! Ninety one hoursā¦!
Sober up or die? Presumably they still went through triage within minutes?
So true. Proper hard cases working there, they have to be. But 5 prisoners with 2 handlers each having treatment in their own side room was just taking the piss when there was a 3 hour wait for JW taxpayer.
The media works both ways, look at the LW Guardian and how patronising some of their comments are, rich people sitting on their little inherited Tractors. Not all Farmers/land owners are James Dyson, Clarkson, the Crown or the Forrestry commission. Is it RW to highlight peopleās concerns or is it only RW if the LW donāt agree with it?
N.b I accept that some papers will be more melodramatic and exaggerate in order to attack Labour.
Anyhow, irrelevant of whether it was the right thing to do, it created an issue and media attention that the Government didnāt need. Morrisons have today thrown their support behind the Farmers and Steve Reed is looking at a new deal. If the Government negotiates a new deal, what impression does that give?
The Inheritance Tax on Farmers doesnāt come in to affect until April 2026 - I understand the need to give notice - but this decision has only been a negative, itās was never going to be a quick win, not be contested and for me was a misjudged decision.
This is most concerning, but an inevitable consequence of the neoliberal agenda.
Any chance of a link from the Guardian being patronising about the farm inheritance issue?
No they arenāt I agree but they were given a platform by certain media outlets as representing the common family farm.
Agreed they got the messaging all wrong as I said.
Why would Morrisons get behind farmers I wonder?
And yet you could argue that this could lead to the common farmer being viewed more negatively.
Are Farmers working people?
I donāt know, do you?
Anyhow, Iām not trying to get into a debate over whether Farmers should face IHT.
My point is that the decision, whether it be right or wrong, has caused an issue for Labour, brought unwanted media attention and lead to questions/distractions Starmer and Reeves didnāt need for no immediate financial benefit. If, Labour renegotiates with the Farmers it shows a lack of understanding and displays weakness.
Personally, I believe Labour should not entertain renegotiating. They need to stay strong otherwise they risk undermining any future decisions. Maybe, they can agree something that silences the farmers through other avenues??
No-one should have to face inheritance tax.
I actually agree with you.
Everyone should face a death tax of 100% of their estate instead.
I knew there was nothing positive in dying.
I think it is one of those things you get used to though
That articleās headline is bang on though. Any change in tax to a particular group gets put through the wringer. You could argue thats warranted but I believe this was a shot across the bows about what happens if you tax the rich.