INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

The Saatchi Bill

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#61 Postby Alan H » November 1st, 2015, 10:21 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Please drop a short email to your MP! Follow the money
We need you to email your MP again, this time asking him/her to turn up for the Money Resolution on Tuesday and ask the Bill’s supporters why they want to waste precious public money on a database that will not and cannot produce any innovation and why they want to increase NHS litigation costs.

We only have 24 hours to do this so please do it now: we need to make sure that the Money Resolution is defeated on Tuesday, ensuring that public money is not available to fund this dangerous and unnecessary Bill.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

jdc
Posts: 516
Joined: January 27th, 2009, 9:03 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#62 Postby jdc » November 2nd, 2015, 2:24 am

Done.
My Blog; Twitter.
Email: 325jdc325 (at) googlemail.com

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#63 Postby Alan H » November 9th, 2015, 7:34 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#64 Postby Alan H » November 24th, 2015, 5:34 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#65 Postby Alan H » January 22nd, 2016, 7:14 pm

Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill to be amended

This, hopefully, will be the end of this goddamn dangerous, stupid, ignorant, idiotic nonsense that's been the bane of my life for the last two years. Lord Maurice Saatchi may well resurrect his original version in the Lords, but not if he's sensible. But not being sensible seems to be his forte and if it wasn't for his stubbornness and complete inability to actually listen and comprehend what he's been told, we (that is myself, Andy Lewis, several lawyers (including a QC), professors of law and medicine, doctors and others) wouldn't have had to spend so much of our spare time (And about £100 of our own money) on this, continually having to repeat ourselves because the Bill's supporters and PR team (yes, the Bill had a PR team and The Telegraph as it's media partner) were either unwilling or incapable of understanding simple concepts such as evidence and were so egotistical and single-mindedly stubborn that they preferred their own reality over the, you know, actual one we all inhabit.

My 'faith' in the democracy of both houses has been severely dented - if not utterly destroyed - by the piss-poor standard of debate and the political manoeuvrings over this - not to mention the outright falsehoods...
Thank you for listening to my rant... </rant>

Having said that, there's a saying about things ending and a female singer... so I won't be celebrating yet. The Report stage is next Friday (29th).

...and... the amendments to delete clauses 3 and 4 have just been published. Such amendments are always accepted and agreed, so this look likes the end of the nasty clauses. There still remains, however, the unnecessary and potentially dangerous database provisions - and, of course, Saatchi's original Bill in the HoL.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#66 Postby Alan H » January 29th, 2016, 2:02 pm

The House of Commons has just removed clauses 3 and 4 from Chris Heaton-Harris's version of the Saatchi Bill. These two clauses were the Saatchi Bill. It has taken two years, but finally...

All that is left is the provision for the setting up of a database of innovative treatments. Having listened to the debate, there seemed a lot of confusion about whether the database is for treatments, trials or patients. It will either be a white elephant or it will harm patients.

However, it's not over: Saatchi's original Bill is still languishing in the Lords. We have no idea if he will now withdraw it or whether it will now be resurrected.

With a few exceptions (mainly Heidi Alexander), the knowledge shown by MPs about science, medicine and research was abysmal. Although better than the Lords, it left me despairing for democracy.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#67 Postby Dave B » January 29th, 2016, 2:24 pm

Democracy, what democracy?

This is a politocracy.

Later: thought I had coined a new term there but someone beat me to it!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#68 Postby Alan H » March 24th, 2016, 12:29 pm

This may or may not be our last post on the Saatchi Bill: Not this day
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#69 Postby Dave B » March 24th, 2016, 2:25 pm

Expect policy making politicians to ask questions that may give them answers they won't like?

Leave orft!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#70 Postby Alan H » May 12th, 2016, 4:27 pm

NOW we can celebrate:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/201 ... ation.html

2016-05-12_15h52_09.png
2016-05-12_15h52_09.png (11.22 KiB) Viewed 1389 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#71 Postby Dave B » May 12th, 2016, 4:57 pm

Does that mean like never?

So, what will they call it when they try to sneak it in in anotber guise?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#72 Postby Alan H » May 12th, 2016, 8:37 pm

Dave B wrote:Does that mean like never?

So, what will they call it when they try to sneak it in in anotber guise?
He may well try to sneak it in again, but I'm sure such a powerful and rich man would not try to use his influence...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#73 Postby Dave B » May 12th, 2016, 9:49 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:Does that mean like never?

So, what will they call it when they try to sneak it in in anotber guise?
He may well try to sneak it in again, but I'm sure such a powerful and rich man would not try to use his influence...

Of course not, he is the epitome of ethical integrity, morality and virtue. A gentle soul fully respectful towards women and the weak.




:sick:
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#74 Postby Alan H » May 12th, 2016, 10:08 pm

Dave B wrote:fully respectful towards women
Are you thinking of his brother Charles?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#75 Postby Dave B » May 12th, 2016, 10:24 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:fully respectful towards women
Are you thinking of his brother Charles?

Ah, but perhaps those qualities do apply? Are you inferring I was being sarcastic or ironic, Alan?

Tut!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23273
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Saatchi Bill

#76 Postby Alan H » May 13th, 2018, 12:54 am

And it rears its ugly head again... the Saatchi monster is not dead, just dormant.

Lord Maurice Saatchi spoke in the Lords a fortnight ago. He wants a Royal Commission to look into the problems with the NHS...I'm sure we could write the conclusions for him now...

But he also said:
Noble Lords will share my concern that, more than two years since that Act achieved cross-party support and received Royal Assent, not only has the database not been established but the section itself has not even been brought into force by commencement regulations under Section 4. So far as I have been able to establish in correspondence with the Minister’s department, he has no definite plans to commence this section, to make the regulations or to establish the database.


Good news for patients, the NHS and staff. Long may the delay continue.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest