Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    In effect, it's under the guise of not bringing the university into disrepute, but in reality, it's presumably to control what we say. I don't post anything on social media anyway, but it's still the principle.
    It's utterly ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind takes the opinions of every individual student to represent an entire university. What next, am I not going to be able to criticise foreign policy in case I bring Britain into disrepute? I find it incredibly worrying that in 2016 it seems we still have to fight for basic freedom of speech.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Hang on - your universities are trying to control what you post from private social media accounts, using your own private devices, expressing your personal opinions? :eek:
    Half right.

    Medicine DOES punish you for social media posting, I know someone who got reported for a night out photo and had a meeting about his "professionalism"

    I work for QUB part time and run their social media, that's their professional account I'm referring to, but I don't think it diminishes the point.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Hang on - your universities are trying to control what you post from private social media accounts, using your own private devices, expressing your personal opinions? :eek:
    Don't forget though, as a Corbyn supporting Med student from the 6 counties I'm a Trotskyite entryist greedy idiot terrorist anyway. What happens when your media is so influential.

    Don't forget the quota employment in university, or the pro-female workforce in unis.

    Trigger warnings trigger me.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Actually scratch that, its good bant to tease about being offended by something to see them recoil.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone know if universities do student support groups for disabilities?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Half right.

    Medicine DOES punish you for social media posting, I know someone who got reported for a night out photo and had a meeting about his "professionalism"

    I work for QUB part time and run their social media, that's their professional account I'm referring to, but I don't think it diminishes the point.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Don't forget though, as a Corbyn supporting Med student from the 6 counties I'm a Trotskyite entryist greedy idiot terrorist anyway. What happens when your media is so influential.

    Don't forget the quota employment in university, or the pro-female workforce in unis.

    Trigger warnings trigger me.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Okay, if you're posting from the uni's account fair enough - that's more a job (whether paid or voluntary) than anything. But with medicine in particular I do think it's ridiculous this notion we have that doctors have to be apolitical for some reason. Frankly if they're going to save my life, I couldn't give a stuff whether they're a Tory or a Trot.

    And how quota systems aren't illegal I'll never know...
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Okay, if you're posting from the uni's account fair enough - that's more a job (whether paid or voluntary) than anything. But with medicine in particular I do think it's ridiculous this notion we have that doctors have to be apolitical for some reason. Frankly if they're going to save my life, I couldn't give a stuff whether they're a Tory or a Trot.

    And how quota systems aren't illegal I'll never know...
    Its just incredibly silly that they employ someone to "advise" on reassuring colour themes, encouraging the dept to spend more on frivolous items and to block posts in case they offend. And by offend, I mean the stupidest posts, trigger warning for statistics and charity notices FFS.

    And yes, it is, very frustrating as someone who was active in the BMA to see it so "conservative" (before IA) - especially now that a Tory shill got appointed to our regulatory body as GMC CEO (Google Charlie Massey) who has threatened to sack all strikers.

    Oh yeah, and the irony of newspapers reporting how the majority of those on strike action are Labourites. Of course they ****ing are, Tory voters aren't going to strike now are they?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Okay, if you're posting from the uni's account fair enough - that's more a job (whether paid or voluntary) than anything. But with medicine in particular I do think it's ridiculous this notion we have that doctors have to be apolitical for some reason. Frankly if they're going to save my life, I couldn't give a stuff whether they're a Tory or a Trot.

    And how quota systems aren't illegal I'll never know...
    Because apparently giving people advantages because of uncontrollable things is apparently acceptable just ask Ray he fully supports people getting a job because of their gender not their ability.

    And I agree to a point a doctor probably shouldn't bring up politics with a patient but in their personal lives or if the patient brings it up its fine.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Okay, if you're posting from the uni's account fair enough - that's more a job (whether paid or voluntary) than anything. But with medicine in particular I do think it's ridiculous this notion we have that doctors have to be apolitical for some reason. Frankly if they're going to save my life, I couldn't give a stuff whether they're a Tory or a Trot.

    And how quota systems aren't illegal I'll never know...
    And the "professionalism" is incredibly hypocritical considering what seniors get away with. I agree with the seniors, but that doing exactly the same as a student is just wrong. Plagiarism perfectly fine from our uni staff, but no, I deserve a yellow card for wearing a wrinkled shirt.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't have an issue with a uni getting involved if the comments are abusive, or discriminatory ect. like as a mediator, to help solve issues.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The King's Fund seem to disagree with you on that one

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects...ell/nhs-budget



    And none of those statements are true

    Most of Europe sits at around about the 10% of GDP mark, the UK a little below, most a little over. Even America, the country the uniformed point to to argue that socialised healthcare is the only good option, isn't double our own spending and they have the highest in the world.

    The EU as a whole is bang on 10%

    Then we can move on to the second claim, surely if we work on the assumption increasing spending increases the results, shouldn't those countries that already have better healthcare at lower prices be EVEN better, and even if we don't make that assumption, only a fool would say that with two otherwise equivalent systems the more expensive better.

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...TL.ZS?view=map



    I see you're fully indoctrinated, and don't even hide that you conform nicely to the lefty stereotype of the solution to everything being to throw somebody else's money at the problem


    --------

    Okay guys and its, what's the next easy to swat crap you're going to throw at me?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Excellent, finally, a response.

    Kings Fund, good source, but it supports my statement, not yours. I suspect you fell for the "35% increase" tag when the clue is at the bottom, an investment increase of only 0.9% annually. Never mind not matching demand (which it may or may not do even if you fixed it to %gdp) but its falling by % share gdp. Spot the drop around 2010 and since.

    I'll rummage for GDP differentials but yeah granted, it might not be double. We spend less per head (dollars) and indeed the UKs is about half of the US' but factor in too that while the European Insurance Scheme is pretty much partial coverage with additional charges for GP visits etc. So the UK system is arguably the only system that offers full coverage for everything, for free, at less per head than paid systems.

    You lost me in bold, you don't think investing (appropriately) in a health service will improve it? You don't think if both systems are similar that the better funded one provides better care? Really?

    Or do you mean that an extra £4bn invested into the NHS would be wasted? (Arguably true in RL, what happens when conservatives inject a policy which flopped, see the new dial a health care professional scheme.

    Away to work, will update.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Just to add here, since this isn't suitable for UKIPs question forum.

    I'd like to add us well that per capita spending (so, per person) sees UK sit near the EU average.OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country_svg.png but below all our similar EU nations.

    In direct response to this;
    "I see you're fully indoctrinated, and don't even hide that you conform nicely to the lefty stereotype of the solution to everything being to throw somebody else's money at the problem"

    I don't see how this is a lefty stereotype, and if you actually followed the convo, I'm happy to discuss how a private system would feasibly be implemented. Rakas raised a great point, if state funding if fixed, the simplest way to save money is elective surgeries. You're critical of any discussion about increased state funding of the health service but never suggest an alternative and how that could be implemented on a nationwide scale. This isn't just narrow-mindedness, this is blind ignorance.

    Fully indoctrinated? I reiterate my stance that Bevan can be right if we properly invested in prevention (which...look, private firms are doing and selling direct to consumer) instead we have a government that takes advantage of short-termism. If we looked long term the savings are enormous. I also feel an obligation to ensure a health care system everyone can access regardless of income, shock horror I know, but yes, I must be Trotskyite.

    Well, I think since government incompetence has ruled us out from planning long term money saving, we have a stark choice, either we limit funding and let quality drop, or we maintain quality and spend more money. I support the latter. I also advocate raising taxes and cutting other costs that you disagree with. No doubt you haven't even read the contract details for the junior doctors, read the BMA views or indeed fully understood Hunt's plan
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Because apparently giving people advantages because of uncontrollable things is apparently acceptable just ask Ray he fully supports people getting a job because of their gender not their ability.

    And I agree to a point a doctor probably shouldn't bring up politics with a patient but in their personal lives or if the patient brings it up its fine.
    Oi, I simply presented you with irrefutable evidence that all-women shortlists have increased the number of deserving female MPs in Parliament. They have corrected disadvantages rather than given advantages. But I'm more than happy to re-engage in that debate with you, rather than have my name snidely envoked in some separate discussion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:


    lel
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Oi, I simply presented you with irrefutable evidence that all-women shortlists have increased the number of deserving female MPs in Parliament. They have corrected disadvantages rather than given advantages. But I'm more than happy to re-engage in that debate with you, rather than have my name snidely envoked in some separate discussion.
    Normally I would but I am about to head off on my holiday.
    You have said that deserving female MPs have been elected but at what cost to other capable MPs who are passed over just because they aren't born the right sex to gain this privilege, no matter how you phrase it you are giving advantages to women.

    It is interesting how much you say the party you support has a deep rooted sexism within, why do you want to associate yourself with a group you believe is sexist?

    You should start looking past a persons gender and whether they are the best for the job, maybe the fact that labour has stopped looking for the best is part of the reason they are currently in a crisis.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Oi, I simply presented you with irrefutable evidence that all-women shortlists have increased the number of deserving female MPs in Parliament. They have corrected disadvantages rather than given advantages. But I'm more than happy to re-engage in that debate with you, rather than have my name snidely envoked in some separate discussion.
    I offer the thought that having multi-member constituencies with the Single Transferable Vote could also increase the number of women in the House, as no party would select an all-male slate of candidates and voters would in my view be just as probable to vote first for a woman, if not more
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    Can't help but feel that Corbyn is coming better off here.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Can't help but feel that Corbyn is coming better off here.
    I agree
    smith doesn't look good at all.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Can't see how anyone would prefer Smith to Milliband tbh.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Smith doesn't like democracy.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Can't see how anyone would prefer Smith to Milliband tbh.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Given that Miliband gained 3% of the English vote and was the 4th best performing loser since WW2 it was in hindsight incredibly stupid to replace him with the options available to you.

    Hell, at this point you should be calling for his return.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 21, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.