No to GP commissioning ... to ensure good decisions and to avoid conflicts of interest

MP's are heaping yet more pressure on the government now by suggesting GPs should not be allowed to take control of the budget all by themselves - take a look at this article in the Telegraph for instance.

The House of Commons' health committee said they should be joined by a range of staff including nurses and hospital doctors to decide how funds are spent.

The move would improve accountability and decision-making, with the MPs stating that the sole focus on family doctors involved in GP consortia is wrong.

Instead, they said the GP consortia should be re-named NHS commissioning authorities and be overseen by a board with representatives from other specialities.

"The expertise of other professionals was essential to ensure the best decisions were taken and to avoid conflicts of interest".

The MP's in the Health Committee are pointing out the obvious ... e.g. the need "to avoid conflicts of interest" ... Public health vs GP profits (from rationing healthcare).

NB their suggestion will not solve this problem entirely ... as a GP's decision to refer a person for treatment is taken in their head ... so most of the time people won't know whether their GP has rationed their care or not! Hence GP's should not be allowed to profit from decisions they make in any other way! NB if you think all GP's are honorable and trustworthy, just remember how they took the taxpayer to the cleaners the last time they re-negotiated their contracts (whilst dumping out of hours cover) ... which was unfortunately down to the incompetence of the last Government too!*

Let's see if the current Government, who said yesterday that they are 'pausing to listen', actually 'listen' ... or whether they're just trying to avoid a total massacre in the forthcoming local elections (before pressing on regardless).

* NB I raised this issue on Question Time at the time these changes were being pushed through, and a fellow blogger made the following point about a GP's recent comments on Question Time too. 

"In a recent BBC Question Time programme a GP from the area from which the programme was being broadcast stated that he was aware of a conspiracy amongst certain GP's to loot the NHS budget for their own financial interest, which, in his view would be detrimental to patient care".

Another honest and trustworthy GP "spilling the beans" and the public ignore this at their peril - as ignorance blinds ... but apathy kills!

BBC - Duty of Care ... and a Dereliction of Duty

To date the BBC has singularly (and deliberately) failed to address the fundamental issues raised by current NHS reforms ... e.g. rewarding GP's for rationing healthcare (a clear conflict of interest), as well all the other fundamental issues raised by every medical professional body (e.g. British Medical Association, Royal College of Surgeons, Royal College of Nursing etc etc)

In my humble opinion this is not only a dereliction of duty, but also points towards a deliberate conspiracy between the BBC and the Government, which is allowing the Government to press ahead with controversial and detrimental NHS reforms which affect everyone's health and well-being, and destroy the NHS. For instance, ask yourself why the Government are trying hard to bribe the greedy GP's to take part (with lucrative personal rewards for implementing it) ... and why all the true, honest, trustworthy and honorable GP's are so against it.

Current NHS reform were not asked for, or voted for, by anyone ... yet are being pushed through rapidly by this Government regardless of all the concerns raised by professional bodies and the general public. The introduction of the NHS was a key moment in UK history, and its destruction is equally as dramatic. Yet the BBC are failing to cover this issue in any real way (despite the public repeatedly asking them to). Nick Robinson is conveniently (for the Government) and deliberately not addressing it, preferring to focus all his attention on Libya instead, and the BBC's health correspondent, Fergus Walsh, is not addressing the issue either (despite his stated aim of wanting to look into the future and into the ethical issues associated with healthcare in particular).

Here is what I have posted on his blog when discussing the sharing/adoption of good practice (nb my post, the first post in response to his blog, was referred to their moderators rather than posted, despite the fact it broke no house rules ... and was then left that way!) 

Hospital managers also have a responsibility to adopt world class leadership and management practices ... but unfortunately such practices are almost completely opposite to what most managers currently understand/practice! However in leading hospitals the adoption of 21st century practices is quietly (and successfully) transforming patient outcomes, radically improving patient care and reducing unnecessary stress for both patients and staff. The problem is this type of 'management' is radically different to 'traditional management' ... and needs far less 'management' ... which perhaps goes some way to explaining why some managers are rather slow to spot it and adopt it! (i.e. it's a mixture of ignorance, apathy and self interest on the part of leaders and managers). Why don't you have a look into this area as well?

PS Why are you not also blogging about the ethics of profits v patient care (e.g. rewarding GP's for rationing healthcare)? IMHO if this blog is worth anything at all it should really be tackling this. Or is this an 'agreed no go-area' for the BBC! I note Nick Robinson is also completely avoiding this area and is happy to allow the Government to quietly destroy the NHS too ... through reforms no-one voted for and every professional body is against ... yet no-one is being listened to ... ethics, democracy, an independent BBC? I think not.

... and here is what I subsequently posted (post 11), which the BBC did reluctantly post!

Post 1 was referred for no good reason and has still not been reviewed/published! 

IMHO the BBC health blog is failing in its duty of care by not tackling the fundamental (and once in a lifetime) ethical issues/crisis which the NHS is facing at the moment (e.g. allowing GP's to profit from rationing healthcare - i.e. conflicts of interest), and Nick Robinson isn't either (preferring to focus only on Libya), despite the fundamental concerns raised by every professional medical body. Incompetence, dereliction of duty, conspiracy ... could be any or all of them.

The BBC appear not to want to upset their paymasters ... and this is not the licence fee payer - but the Government who decide how much (if anything) the licence fee payer has to pay! Independent ... I think not! They are just as bad as the politicians ... i.e. looking after themselves with no responsibility/duty of care.

I think these posts say it all really ... i.e. don't expect the BBC to feel they have a duty of care to the public (who they are supposed to serve - as we pay their salary), as they know the group who actually decide their fate is the Government  ... who agree the level of BBC licence fee and force people to pay ... but then most learned people in the blogosphere realise this already (nb the ex-director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke, Jeremy Paxman and Peter Sissons etc have all previously voiced their concern about this in the past).

Conflict of Interest: 'Profit for Doctors' v 'Your Care'

Following my post in January entitled "NHS Reforms: Patient Choice or Doctor's Choice?" I exposed the fundamental flaws in the reforms planned for the NHS, as well as the conflicts of interest they create. As they stand GP's will be able to profiteer in many different ways, destroying the trust between patient and GP. 

Well Channel 4 has today also gone on the offensive, exposing the fundamental flaws in the proposed bill and challenging politicians/providers. They highlight how the current bill is almost devoid of any legislation focused on tackling fundamental conflicts of interest and stopping GP's from being able to profiteer from such reforms (at the expense of patient care). Channel 4 pointed out numerous ways GP's will be able to profiteer (e.g. referring work to providers they are 'partners' in, being given a share of the profits created by reducing the amount spent on care for patients etc), and went further by exposing the plans of some of the groups involved (e.g. Integrated Health Partners).

Will the Government now start to listen and avoid this potential catastophe?  Let's hope so, though they haven't listened to date (e.g. to the concerns of the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing). It's interesting the BBC and Nick Robinson are nowhere to be seen when it comes to challenging these NHS reforms ... I wonder why!

Reforming banks - A fight to the death?

Whilst some (e.g. Gordon Brown) focus on spin, others focus on substance (e.g. Barack Obama).  Whilst some try to paper over the cracks (e.g. UK), others try to focus on solving the problem (e.g. USA).  This has become ever clearer over recent days and weeks .... in relation to dealing with banks ...  

Gordon Brown decided to introduce a one-off 'bonus tax' for bankers, which involved far more spin than substance.  Barack Obama on the other hand plans to introduce a bank levy and made it clear 'Wall Street' must pay back all the $117bn (£72bn) that US taxpayers are expected to lose from bailing out the banks during the financial crisis. "My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed ... We want our money back and we're going to get it", the President said.


However over the last two days he has gone much further.  President Barack Obama has proposed significant new curbs on the activities of banks to try to prevent future financial crises.  The plans include limits to the size of banks and restrictions on riskier trading. "Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by banks that are too big to fail," Mr Obama said.   He added he was ready for a "fight" with any banks prepared to lobby against tougher regulations.


"While the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it is still operating under the exact same rules that led to its near collapse," Mr Obama said.  His proposals also include a ban on retail banks from using their own money in investments - known as proprietary trading. Instead, banks would be limited to investing their customers' funds.


I, and many others in the blogosphere, have regularly pointed out the fallacy of allowing retail banking and risky investment banking being joined together and remaining together, but the UK Government has singly failed to address this issue, and the BBC failed in it's duty to press home this issue either.  


Mr Obama's proposals appear to be a return to the principles underlying the Glass-Steagall Act. That law - from the 1930s in the aftermath of the Great Depression - separated commercial and investment banking and was eventually abolished in 1999 under President Bill Clinton.


"I am proposing simple, common sense reforms" Mr Obama said, and vowed "If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have".

Psychology and mind games

Another interesting post from a fellow blogger to ponder ... writingsonthewall today wrote:

"It's all about psychology and mind games.

Has anyone noticed that every piece of bad news is qualified by "better than Economists predicted" ?

It's no different today with the news that the PSBR in November was greater than since records began (and consequently at the greatest since the crisis started) ... The fact that Economists (who are not known for their prediction accuracy) got it wrong is not surprise really - and yet psychologically it makes us feel slightly more secure.

Now it might be that Economists are simply pessimists, but it's hard to believe that they always predict worse than expected for 'bad news' ... Start watching what you are being fed by the media and see what they are really up to ... It's all designed so that some time next autumn when we're told what the massive public sector cuts will be, they will be able to say how they are not as bad as expected and we will suffer them thinking that it's right, fair and neccessary and better than the alternative".

NB This supports and links very well with my previous post about BBC reporting ...

Climategate - The bursting of another bubble

Following my previous posts questioning the science (and politics) behind climate change, and the reasons for the BBC's lack of reporting (and biased reporting) ... it looks like this particular bubble is just about to burst ... with the Telegraph exposing what it has called "Climategate" ... which will be heard (and felt) by nations and economies all around the world ...

A fellow blogger recently wrote the following on one of Stephanie Flanders' blogs ....

"Not even a whiff of this world breaking story on any the BBC websites main story boards ... a week after the Telegraph coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times ..." and referred to the links below:

1. Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

2. Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row

In response I replied:

"An excellent post and I couldn't agree more - take a look at my post a while ago pointing to this folly too ... and this one to see why the BBC report (and don't report) as they do ... all the evidence is now starting to spill out (thanks again to the Telegraph) ... and it's indeed a Climategate ...

As far as the economy is concerned IMHO this now means the 'next bubble' they planned to inflate has just burst in their face ... so now what are they going to do? ... hope? discredit? create more spin? or adopt some effective solutions to our problems ... I'm afraid with the 'shower' sitting within every mainstream political party, it could be any of the above, except for the latter!"

The BBC - part of the conspiracy preventing 21st century democracy

Following from my last post, and my previous points about the BBC failing in it's duties, Greg Dyke (former Director General of the BBC) has also today stepped forward to tell us the BBC is part of a "conspiracy" preventing the "radical changes" needed to UK democracy ... and he told a Lib Dem conference meeting he wanted a commission to look into the "whole political system".

But Greg Dyke also said 'I fear it will never happen because I fear the political class will stop it' and said 'major changes he had wanted to make to the BBC's coverage of politics had been blocked'.

He told the Liberal Vision fringe meeting about the expenses scandal and how it had changed voters' attitudes ... 'The evidence that our democracy is failing is overwhelming and yet those with the biggest interest in sustaining the current system - the Westminster village, the media and particularly the political parties - are the groups most in denial about what is really happening to our democracy ...'

Mr Dyke also said ... 'there had never been a greater separation between the 'political class' and the public. We want more influence over our lives and we are not just prepared to hand it over to this strange bunch of people who stand for Parliament ...

... I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors. Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don't want anything to change. It's not in their interests ...'

He said ... 'the expenses scandal had been 'British democracy's Berlin Wall moment' but he feared the opportunity to change the system was fading away. He called for an end to pathetic jeering, shouting and childish behaviour and the pomp and ceremony in Parliament ...

... an independent commission should look at ideas such as moving the seat of democracy out of Westminster, a fully elected upper chamber with no whipping system, proportional representation, cutting the number of MPs by half, and reforming their pay and expenses, he added. It's time to be radical. Our current model was designed for the 18th Century. It doesn't fit 21st Century Britain' ...

And he added ... 'We want more influence over our lives and we are not just prepared to hand it over to this strange bunch of people who stand for Parliament because they have been knocking on people's doors for 10 years ..'

and went on to say ... 'A lot of the BBC governors were also what I call semi-politicians and they liked the present system and.... maybe they were right - it's not the job of the BBC to change the political system and to start questioning the political system ... I happen to not agree with that but, you know, we didn't get anywhere' ... and he added ... 'In the end political journalists live in the same narrow world as politicians do and they don't see a need to change because they think it's the world. They just don't understand that out there it's very different.'

Change - a challenge indeed ... however happen it will, and aided by the internet & 21st century technology, politics & power will eventually change forever ... and with Greg Dyke's comments today we are a little more wiser about the real BBC (and BBC journalists - particularly their 'political' journalists) and the role (or lack of a role) they are playing ... which, if nothing else, confirms what most of us in the blogosphere already know ...

Referred to on Robert Peston's 'What future for media and journalism?' blog.

Media and Journalism - what future ?

Robert Peston recently tried to answer the above question in the Richard Dunn Memorial Lecture at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival ... and for me the main points he made were really about the future of journalism:

"... It was plainly in the public interest to disclose the weakness of our banks. And the primary justification - for me - of this kind of story is to democratise information that matters to all our livelihoods, which would otherwise be available simply to a few bankers, hedge funds and government officials ...

... what matters is what has always mattered - the facts, the story. The skill for a journalist is unearthing information that matters to people and then communicating it as clearly, accurately - and if possible as entertainingly - as possible ...

... for me, the blog is at the core of everything I do, it is the bedrock of my output. The discipline of doing it shapes my thoughts. It disseminates to a wider world the stories and themes that I think matter ... it connects me to the audience in a very important way. The comments left by readers contain useful insights - and they help me understand what really matters to people. That is not to say that I give them only what they want. I retain an old-fashioned view that in the end the licence fee pays for my putative skills in making judgements about what matters. Most important of all, the blog allows me and the BBC to own a big story and create a community of interested people around it. Sharing information - some of it hugely important, some of it less so - with a big and interested audience delivers that ownership and creates that committed community ...

... more than ever we need a choice of providers of high quality, authoritative news. The question is how to ensure there are enough competing groups with the resources to invest in news - because it is far from cheap to supply people with the information they need to take control of their lives and hold big institutions to account ...

... in my area, of financial journalism - but I think this argument can be extended - there is more-than-ever a requirement to fulfil that traditional purpose of serious journalism, to empower people to participate fully in democracy ...

... there was a time when jobs were for life and a decent income in retirement was guaranteed by a benign employer, with the welfare state rescuing the unlucky or feckless few. Those were the days. Whether it's pensions, or buying a house or acquiring new skills so that we can remain in gainful employment, the onus has been put much more on individuals to make decisions that will determine whether they'll be prosperous or paupers. But are we equipped to make those life-determining decisions? ...

... what I am talking about here, as you know, is the importance of public service journalism, about informing and educating the public so that there is democratic participation in big decisions about the future of capitalism. Now at a time when the future of the financial underpinning of the economy is in question, so too is another part of the fabric of our society - the part that transmits not money but the news and information we need to hold powerful institutions to account. And for me, the issue is all about securing the greatest access for the greatest number of people to a diversity of competing high quality news sources ...

... with financial paternalism in its death throes, just as we are being forced to take control of our financial lives as never before, are we sure that a wholly liberalised commercial news market would ensure that everyone has access to the kind of news and financial information they need and deserve? ...

... will the new paid-for online model inform and educate on hard issues - financial matters, but also medicine, the environment, education and so on - that matter to us, or will it concentrate on the more sensationalist and titillating bangs for the buck? And even if paid-for online services do endeavour to fill the gap created by the death of financial paternalism, will millions on low incomes be excluded from access to this information? Should we be relaxed if 'can't pay' means 'can't know'? ...

there is a debate here about two kinds of fairness. There is the fairness of ensuring a level playing field for players in a commercial market. And there is the fairness of the distribution of information and knowledge to all who need it, irrespective of their material circumstances ..."

The reason for highlighting these statements in particular are because they allude to a more fundamental problem, not directly (but indirectly) mentioned, which is the demise of proper responsible journalism, and its increasing replacement with sensationalist / celebrity news reporting (e.g. headline grabbing) ... as highlighted by Jeremy Paxman as well in the 2007 James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture entitled "Never mind the scandals: what’s it all for" ... as well as Peter Sissons recently, whilst referring to the lack of unbiased journalism in the BBC with regard to climate change ...

Comment Added to Robert Peston's blog.

Ask a 'simple question' ... getting the 'right' answer ?

On attending the London School of Economics, one of the supposedly most prestigious (but in reality one of the most out-dated) establishments, the Queen decided to ask a very simple question: ... 'Why no-one had predicted the credit crunch ... !'

The London School of Economics were apparently rather challenged by the question, and the Sunday Times today Tim Besley [Kuwait Professor of economics and political science at the London School of Economics and member of the Bank of England MPC], and Peter Hennessy [Professor of contemporary British history at Queen Mary College, University of London] said "The academics have now replied in a three-page letter blaming a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people" ...

Yet many people had (e.g. 'creative outsiders', less 'favored' economists and fellow bloggers), but they were not the ones the Government and other establishments listened too (including the BBC) ... hence the problems we now face ...*

We know 'traditional economics' is dead, and traditional establishments will always be the last to spot this, or admit this ... and they will fight all the way to avoid acknowledging their mistakes (e.g. listening / promoting their own - their own people, ideas and incompetence..!)

I tend to agree with a fellow blogger's observations (see below), but I would include the involvement, cover-ups and collusion of other 'traditional' establishments too (e.g. BBC**, Government, Banks, CBI ...), and as far as the current 'leaders' from all these traditional establishments are concerned, they are all "Maybe Best Avoided" ... and they should all be re-applying for their posts, with hard-working people having confidence in the values, knowledge & abilities of those who are appointed to them ...

* NB Solutions exist - but these establishment still don't understand, get it, or listen to anyone other than themselves ... e.g. go to http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/07/leanomics-charting-path-to-recovery.html for instance.

** NB Stephanie Flanders still hasn't stepped up to the mark, but perhaps Stephanie asked the Queen to do this instead ... !?!?!

––––––––––

Post 103 (John_from_Hendon) wrote:

"... See for example today's Sunday Times: ( Tim Besley, Kuwait professor of economics and political science at the London School of Economics, and Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary British history at Queen Mary College, University of London) "The academics have now replied in a three-page letter blaming a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people" as a response to HM the Queen as to why the economists as a profession(!) did not spot the credit crunch.

When even the Queen is demanding answers, why are we, the people, not being allowed to both have answers and the take appropriate steps - that is to fire the miseducated economists working as regulators (the Bank of England, The FSA the MPC) and in economic management (HM Treasury) and universities (too numerous to list including Harvard, Balliol etc.). Certainly we, the people, should have the right to ask that all economists re-apply for their posts and in that process we should only re-employ those economists who can provide documentary proof that they saw the crunch coming. Their text books should be moved to the comedy section of all libraries ..."

––––––––––––––––

Leanomist post 127.

Does Size Matter ?

Stephanie Flanders started a blog yesterday entitled "Does size matter?" ... but in my view it mostly missed the point ... so I have started to ask this question in a more effective way (see below). Stephanie (and the BBC) are clearly failing in their job (and their duty) so we'll have to do it ourselves instead ... Stephanie referred to QE (Quantatitive Easing), but I think there are much more fundamental issues than that ...

.....

Does Size Matter? .... Well I think the question should be "Does the Size of ..... Matter?" For instance take a look at few 'starter for ten' examples I've included below ...

* The size of our debt

* The size of the trade/budget deficits

* The size of the future pensions crisis

* The size of our untapped talent (unemployment, part-time, temporary working)

* The size of the innovation gap

* The size of the population stressed and insecure about their jobs/future

* The size of the waste (between 40%-90%) and frustration systematically created by out of date 'leadership' and 'management' practices

* The gap between what current 'leaders' are 'telling you' and what is actually 'true'

* The size of the gap between the 'leadership' we currently have and the 'leadership' we really need

* The size of the cover ups we now see

* The size of the greed/incompetence current leaders show

* The size of the culpability, current leaders will bear

* The size of the anger that is yet to rise from the people

* The size of the problem that will be eventually occur before most people decide to do something about it

* The size of the failure that will result from people not taking responsibility, or being accountable for what they do (and don't do)

* The size of the hypocrisy we now see

* The size of the gap between the behaviours we now see and the ethical behaviours (trust, honor, responsibility, respect - Leanomics) we now need

* The size of the 'backlash' likely to occur when most people realise what 'leaders' have been doing

* The size of the wealth being generated for just a few, and the expense of the many

* The size of the self interest/greed which will cause certain nations to collapse

* The size of the collusion that exist to stop progress/improvements being made

* The size of conspiracies that exist, to benefit the few and not the many

* The size of the group who 'manipulate wealth' rather than 'add value' and 'create wealth'

* The size of the arrogance of those in Power

* The size of the failure in 'leadership' we now see

* The size and number of scams we now see

* The size of failure and the lack of democracy people actually have (one of the biggest scams/spin of all)

* The size of the failure by mainstream education, and the impact this will have on us too

* The size of the failure created (and the lack of wisdom shown) by 'traditional establishments', and their failure to see this too

* The size and misuse of power, from all those in 'power' (Poweromics)

* The size of the group who do not understand this (an example of Ignoromics Type 1*)

* The size of the apathy from people at large (an example of Ignoromics Type 2*)

* The size of the collapse the nation is still yet to see

* The size of power hard-working people currently have but have not yet realised

* The size of change we have to come

* The size of the crisis will get before we see the changes we now need

* The size of our irrelevance in the world of the future

* The size of gap that will continue to grow, until people become more curious and take more responsibility for doing things differently

* The size of the gap between what current 'leaders' & 'management' do and what 21st century "leadership" & "management" is (e.g. take a look at the book Lean World)

* The size of the holes in the Government plan (or any other party's plan of action) for doing anything about it

.....

.....

.....

This is a just quick list I've started off ... and everyone's welcome to add to it here (and in future blogs) too ... Take a look at this (the blog here) for more (*and definitions of Type 1 Ignoromics and Type 2 Ignoromics too), as it'll add more and more (including yours), along with a few examples too ... (Leanomist Post 70)

......

Here are the definitions of Type 1 Ignoromics and Type 2 Ignoromics ...

Ignoromics (Type 1) = People are either effectively ignorant of the situation (e.g. the overall environment).

Ignoromics (Type 2) = People aware of the overall situation, but not prepared to take responsibility to make sure it changes for the better.

I have highlighted the above so we can start to reduce them, and address some of the Poweromics that's resulting in much of what we see above today .... Leanomics is about showing respect and taking responsibility for improving the situation for others .... and without this soon all the above will unfortunately resign us to history (as a failed & irrelevant nation) ...

NB Type 2 is arguably what applies to the BBC (and Stephanie Flanders) as they clearly understand, but fail to take responsibility for doing anything about it. It's worth noting that Stephanie likes to tell us that she went to Havard, and that many of her friends / colleagues just happened to go to such places too ... so perhaps we should not be surprised, particularly given the report issued by Alan Milburn (on the same day), highlighting how positions are obtained in such establishments (which includes journalists and the BBC), and how they 'promote' their own ... their own people, ideas and incompetence!

It's a shame that 'leaders' have not yet realised, that just like most MBA's, such establishments are "Maybe Best Avoided" ... !

This post was also referred to on "The shrinking economy' too (Leanomist Post 9)

Will Stephanie help change the course of history?

Is Stephanie prepared to help us face the challenges ahead? ... Take a look at Stephanie's latest blog, my previous post, and my comments made earlier today too (below) ...

Stephanie has already read a lot of the comments made on her post, and has already responded to some of them too ... I'll keep you posted with what happens, and let's see if Stephanie Flanders is up for (and able to help with) 'changing the course of history' ...

––––––––––––––––––

Post 239 (leanomist) wrote:

Post 197 Stephanie Flanders (following Stephanie's response to a previous comment).

Well done for starting this post and for taking the time to read the comments. There is a lot of invaluable insight available in this post ... and having started this off, there is arguably a responsibility for yourself (and the BBC) to follow-up on it - so can you tell us what you plan to do now please?

I have pulled one quick thread together for you (focused on 'changing the course of history' ... see the link provided below) ... and there are clearly more threads too ... I look forward to your response and to watching progress made with interest ...

http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-tells-story-and-it-will.html

This a journey of a lifetime - and one our nation cannot afford you (and the BBC) not to take - please don't disappoint us (it's arguably become a civic responsibility now). You have quite rightly opened the door and now is the time to step in ... good luck ... we're supporting you (so long as you go through the door now, and don't allow all the 'traditional establishments' to immediately deflect/dismiss everything and/or to quickly close ranks).

David Clift, A Future 500 Leader

––––––––––––––––––