snowychap

Ah, Matt Johnson. Quality ! Infected and Soul mining are two of my favourite albums. Style council - Walls come tumbling down.

The Housemartins - Sheep

Smiths - The Queen is Dead

Gringo, I think you are being very generous in applying Pareto to this. Wealth distribution is rarely that fair!

:-) it's called selective quoting and helps with my points ..(see point scoring thread for explanation of rules ) no-one said you were allowed to retort by showing the full quote ..how dare you sir Sorry. :oops: I tried to read all the pages of the points scoring thread but it began to do my eyes in - all those quote boxes! Feel free to throw the whole quote back at me when/if :winkold: the BofE cut rates again in the next three months.

I'm not so sure, Tony. :-) The Bank of England's policymakers have, cut interest rates - to the relief of millions of homeowners and thousands of businesses. Members of its Monetary Policy Committee have trimmed the cost of borrowing by 0.25% to 5.25%. This is less than the 0.5% reduction companies, especially retailers, had been calling for. However, analysts point out the nine-strong committee fought shy of such a big cut because they are wary of stoking inflation. My answer to your post was that I doubted that the BofE would 'follow' the Fed. I don't think a quarter point cut is 'following' a cut of one and a quarter points. But, Tony, I am disappointed and saddened that you don't read all of my posts. :cry: :cry: And I quote (from page 4): :winkold:

Disclaimers - not worth the forum they're written on!* *This does not, in any circumstance, constitute legal advice. Snowychap accepts no liability whatsoever for anyone being upset, defrauded, abused or killed due to any interpretation of the comments he makes. :winkold:

The most apposite part of the analogy was the part about ignoring one's own warnings (or worries) about potential future problems and where the fault would lie if those problems actually came about after one had consciously decided not to attempt to address them. The standard (or otherwise) of the analogy that he used as the vehicle to put across the fundamental question does not impinge upon the validity of that question and that is the fundamental basis for the analogy regardless of the similarities (or not) of the ribbons used to dress that analogy.

Surely that would make it worse? As far as rsjg's analogy goes, he did say : 'By this time I'd passed all the petrol stations and then the inevitable happened. I ran out of fuel.' Implying that he did take into account the limited time period in which to 'fill up'. The prob with the analogy might be the suggestion that the 'petrol' of whatever source or grade was readily available within the limited area.

It's your wife's fault for complaining. :nod: Can't she just trust you on every decision you make? Surely she could see that you were doing brilliantly until the traffic jam and only the vagaries of the transport infrastructure prevented you from getting to your destination? You were the best husband she could get and she and her friends and family showed so much joy when she got you. Are there any other husbands out there who are better? The hard shoulders are littered with arguing couples who have run out of fuel or whose car has broken down. Most times the wife is saying, "I told you so." In your case, your wife would be saying, "You told me so."

I'm not so sure, Tony. The MPC's main remit is to keep inflation to target rather than to intervene to stimulate growth a la the Fed. Having read the notes on the BoE's meeting earlier this month, I would guess that there is a chance that they may cut the rate slightly in Feb but that will depend greatly on both CPI and RPI. In the notes they acknowledge that there are a lot of inflationary risks currently (especially with energy prices and by feb we might start seeing some impact of the recent increases) and I'm guessing that these will be the main driver for any MPC decision. If you were to push me on what I thought might happen, it would be a .25% cut in Feb followed by two or three months of no movement. Thereafter, it's anyone's guess. Energy companies could suddenly decide to go through a round of cuts and the potentially good impact this would have on inflation could mean a further cut which might be half a percent. On the other hand if CPI has gone anywhere near 2.5% pus or RPI is not around the same as currently, then there will be no way that I could see them cutting interest rates just to stimulate demand. I can also see the 'technical' definition of recession being stressed over and over again just to support any lack of cut.

That's what unfettered immigration gives you though. Bloody Germans.

I see the consistency in your argument about hard opt out with regard to observing the actual person's wishes rather than relying upon the consent of family members, etc. And to be honest, I would prefer a 'hardness' applied to the current system, i.e. as I have volunteered to be a donor and registered my wishes then no one else but me has the right to withdraw my volunteered consent. Baz, I don't think we'll agree, will we? But I think it has been an interesting discussion. Thanks. My last comment is a quote from another forum : They (organ recipients) do not receive organs because we HAVE to donate them, they receive them because we WANT to donate them. As soon as we lose sight of this, we (society) become little more than parasites.

Your points do make sense. I would counter with a few: The Spanish have had presumed consent for at least 30 years and it is only in the last twenty that their donation rates have increased. One reason is the reduction in relatives' refusal rates from about 27% to about 15%. This has come about because of an overhaul of how they manage their system. What they didn't do is say that the soft opt out system was not working, that a hard opt out would increase the donor pool and therefore have the desired results. They addressed the reasons why they were not getting large enough donation rates within the boundaries of the system which they had. That is what improved their donation rates not their system. Now I am not doubting that a change from our system to a hard opt out system would increase donation rates but I'm not so sure that it would satisfy the demand or be as successful as might be thought logical. Austria's donation rate is. I believe. less than that in the US. The US system is one that requires specific consent (though differs slightly from state to state) and yet they manage a rate which is twice that of the UK (25.5% as opposed to 12.8%). Yes a hard opt out system would increase the pool of donors (though not necessarily the immediate or short term pool of donor organs :winkold: ) but would it do what is need or required of itself? I think that as soon as you start to mention a hard system that the agreement rate would drop from the 90% achieved by the small 'shopping centre' surveys. As of march 2007, there were about 14 million on the donor register (I have no figure about how many of these are under 16) and that figure increased by about 1 million in the previous year so we could guess that there are a few more than 14 million now. The potential adult pool (to whom presumed consent would apply) is at most 48 million (80% of 60 million population over 16). At 90% this is around 43 million - though again I would maintain that a 'hard' system would bring that down. However, staying at a best case scenarion of 90% - the increased pool is pretty much exactly 3 times the current pool. The conclusions that I would draw from these rough figures is that - yes, changing to a hard opt out system could increase the donation rate by what is required. Though it would appear that it would only do so in the most favourable of winds using the most favourable (and questionable) of estimates and that it would be pretty tight. Whereas if we could reduce the relative refusal that we have in this country (of 40%) by the same scale that the spanish have (i.e. by close to half) then that would double the rate. Then we would only need to increase the pool by 50% - around 7 million: something which, surely, is not that difficult with a bit of investment considering that the pool increased by 1 million between 2006 and 2007 without much investment and/or promotion of the cause?

Keyboard controls here

Please, please, please, don't use this phrase. It does nothing to add to your otherwise well-constructed contribution to the debate. What are the 'additional factors' which contribute to the success of the Spanish model (which is the model that is being proposed as the one to follow in the UK)?

I don't think there is anything false about the counter-argument. I am not going so far as to say that the presumption of consent is a massive infringement of liberties but it is a reversal which is wrong in my view. I have an inherent problem with being 'volunteered' for anything (yes even something with which I agree) whereas I have little problem in volunteering (if it is something with which I agree). Again, an opt out scheme does not necessarily benefit the health system and is very unlikely to on its own and I maintain the argument that a system change per se does not address inherent problems with a process. Without massive investment in personnel, training, co-ordination and public education - there is no way that merely flicking over to a soft opt out system will obtain the threefold increase currently required in organ donations. As far as the 77% take-up, it is very easy to give the feel good answer in response to a survey question. My reason for the quote is that it represents the scepical way with which I view any legislation and thus I apply it to this proposal as any other.

I don't normally quote US Presidents (unless making fun of the recent ones) but here's something from Lyndon Johnson : "You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."

'Boots of blinding speed' - every time. I wouldn't have had the patience to play the game otherwise. As their name implies, though, you are blinded so you need some magicka resistance which you can get with the 'Cuirass of the Savior's Hide' (in Tel Fyr, IIRC).

Great post, Levi. On a technicality: bolshie, though its political origins are obvious, is generally a word associated with being stubborn,cantankerous and argumentative (in the UK). Just in case anyone starts putting me in the box of the October revolutionaries. :shock:

Well, that's true, but a system not working and a system needing to be changed - they are kind of related, aren't they? I don't think so. If something is not working, one needs to investigate why and then address those issues. Take a footy side playing 4-4-2. They are losing every game. Does it automatically follow that the way to improve their fortunes is to change the system? No. There has to be a holistic approach. All aspects need to be looked at and the best remedy chosen. Now, that best remedy might well be a different system; on the other hand it might well be addressing issues to do with the understanding and implementation of the current system. Perhaps some do not realise the way in which they fit in to the current system and the importance of their role. So apart from the issue that I have with 'presumed consent', I also have a problem with the automatic assumption that when something is not working it is the system which needs changing. It is an example of the 'paper over the cracks' society where mistakes are rarely acknowledged or admitted to, where people 'work around' problems rather than solve them and where adoption of someone else's 'model' is a substitute for a proper thought process. As Gringo suggested, complex problems are best served by an analytical approach and I don't think Brown's or Donaldson's proposals are anything other than snap reactions.

Yes, BOF. Enjoyed the discussion. :nod:

This I slightly disagree with. I would call it clever government for a lazy society. Bear with me. They are actually doing something about it, so it's not lazy per se. I know you'll say they should put more effort into getting people to voluntarily sign up to the existing system, but again I think you are both under-estimating the sheer laziness and apathy of the common or garden slob and under-estimating the benefit the new system would have on people in life-threatening situation without actually diminishing the rights of anyone. One of the reasons that I think it is lazy government is because I very much doubt that, with the presumed consent system. there would come the financial and infrastructural back up required to get any real benefit. It is not a necessary corollary of an opt out system that donations increase. I believe that Sweden has an opt out system and their donation rate is around the same as the UK (and falling, I think). By all accounts the 'Spanish model' is the leading light of organ donations with about 35 per million population (see UK Transplant website) and it is argued that their figures are more to do with the investment in a change of attitude rather than a change in system. In fact their increase since the early nineties has been more down to a decrease in the family refusal rate than anything else (from c.27% down to c.15%). So I stand by the lazy government call because it seems clear that it is how you manage the system that counts and not what the system is. It would be bloody brill if we could have the UK model - to rival the Spanish model - only based upon an opt in system. I won't get in to the politicising by-product. :winkold: Leave that for another time. And Gringo, thanks for the conversion.

My motives for being on it currently are that I think it is the right thing to do and that I would want any part of my body to be utilised for the good of another whose life it may prolong (though not as part of a cannibal's meal obviously :winkold: ). I also believe that it is a good thing for everyone to do and that we should spend time and money in trying to educate people that it is of great benefit to those in need of replacement organs, their families and possibly society as a whole. What I don't like is the attitude of presumed consent. It's lazy government for a lazy society. It might just be me being bolshie but there is a fundamental idea behind this that unless you stick your hand up and say so then your organs are someone else's to do with as they please when you pop your clogs. Are we to have an opt out system for blood donation? An opt out system to DNA donation for gene therapies?

But, BOF, my situation would change. I am currently on the donor's register and, under a system of presumed consent, I would be putting my name on the register of non-donors. So I think it does affect me.