Planet Rugby Forum

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:16 pm**

P.S. Presume you're missing a 't Nols.

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:45 pm**

Mm. Yes.

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:28 pm**

Another murder in Coolock. That's the 5th in the Coolock/Darndale area this year.

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:32 pm**

As long as it is scum killing scum... Crack on...

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:58 pm**

nardol wrote:As long as it is scum killing scum... Crack on...

Yup

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:24 pm**

https://youtu.be/1wmgghlEagA

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:25 pm**

HighKingLeinster wrote:
nardol wrote:As long as it is scum killing scum... Crack on...
Yup

Unfortunately, when scum are killing each other it's because they're making a living off the misery of normal people.

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:28 pm**

Nolanator wrote:
HighKingLeinster wrote:
nardol wrote:As long as it is scum killing scum... Crack on...
Yup
Unfortunately, when scum are killing each other it's because they're making a living off the misery of normal people.

And it's not good for kids to grow up around that sort of cheapening of life and the associated glorification of those involved. It's just not a great place to be atm.

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:42 pm**

Yep, very true. Good clip from the Wire, I didn't remember that scene.

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:12 pm**

anonymous_joe wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
anonymous_joe wrote:I see you lads ignored the RCS report that was in the media last week.

Funny that.
Jesus f**king Christ it is literally explained to you one post previous
No, actually, it's not explained at all.

You lot on here have decided that the system must be protected, notwithstanding the fact that the system failed. And its failure has potentially cost women an opportunity to fight cancer.

I'm not interested in being emotive, but I'm startled at the callous disregard for these women and the head-in-the-sand attitude adopted towards the consequences of the current system.

That sentence sums up everything wrong with the Irish legal system

It didn’t “fail” under any sane review of its overall operation and effectiveness
This so called “Potential” can’t be proven and it’s just a lawyers way of bringing emotion into a courtroom
No one was deprived of an “opportunity to fight cancer” .... unless you’re saying the cervical check system somehow stopped these women from getting treatment once they were diagnosed?

You’re an otherwise intelligent man, so the only conclusions people here can come to is that you are A) an ambulance chaser or B) you have some form of Stockholm syndrome from spending too long in the 4 goldmines

Both are REALLY bad looks AJ

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:27 pm**

AJ refuses to accept that the world isn't perfect and money/time is finite.

As such, we screen based on maximising our chances of saving lives while also minimising putting women through unnecessary procedures.

How he thinks what has happened is going to save lives and not potentially cause more deaths or at the very least a lot more suffering, I don't know.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:57 am**

camroc1 wrote:Explain to me again, AJ, how a false negative screening test gives women cervical cancer.

I need a good laugh.

Would you ever fúck off with this nonsense.

If person X has cancer and a negligent false negative arises, then clearly that person could have been treated earlier.

If a competent test gives a false negative, no liability arises, but if the false negative was not performed competently, then liability could and should arise.

One wonders if you'd be so blasé if it was a cancer effecting men.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:59 am**

anonymous_joe wrote:
camroc1 wrote:Explain to me again, AJ, how a false negative screening test gives women cervical cancer.

I need a good laugh.
Would you ever fúck off with this nonsense.

If person X has cancer and a negligent false negative arises, then clearly that person could have been treated earlier.

If a competent test gives a false negative, no liability arises, but if the false negative was not performed competently, then liability could and should arise.

One wonders if you'd be so blasé if it was a cancer effecting men.

And what if the nature of the test is that (say) a 20% rate of false negatives is expected ?

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:01 am**

Nolanator wrote:
danthefan wrote:Is he saying it's either 100% accurate (as in anything in life, an impossibility) or its a failure? Nobody can think that surely.
Sure you can, when there's compensation to be chased.
Admit that it can be less than 100% accurate, but still be effective means that you can't cash in.

The issue is not that there are false negatives.

I'm surprised people are still pretending that's the case. Nobody anywhere has said that.

What has been said repeatedly is that screening can be negligent.

Screening is not foolproof and false negatives are entirely possible.

None of this is in issue.

What is seemingly in issue is whether or not a screening can be done negligently. This does not seem particularly challenging to me, and review by the RCOG has supported that proposition. Some of the screening was negligent.

I am at a loss as to why anybody would now be defending a system that an independent group of experts and our courts have now found were negligent in some of the care they provided.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:05 am**

You are wasting your time Cammy he’s on a troll

1. They didn’t “have cancer” they had pre-cancerous changes on a biopsy - these are extremely difficult to spot and subject to a lot of individual interpretation

2. If you review slides in retrospect - it’s easier to say ah yeah there were clearly pre-cancerous changes to some cells on that slide. This is because your have the benefit of hindsight knowing that the woman went on to develop cancer. You also have more time to examine the slide as you’re reviewing a small number of slides and not screening a whole population.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:06 am**

Duff Paddy wrote:You are wasting your time Cammy he’s on a troll

1. They didn’t “have cancer” they had pre-cancerous changes on a biopsy - these are extremely difficult to spot and subject to a lot of individual interpretation

2. If you review slides in retrospect - it’s easier to say ah yeah there were clearly pre-cancerous changes to some cells on that slide. This is because your have the benefit of hindsight knowing that the woman went on to develop cancer. You also have more time to examine the slide as you’re reviewing a small number of slides and not screening a whole population.

Why do you think the RCOG disagreed with you?

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:06 am**

I am at a loss as to why anybody would now be defending a system that an independent group of experts and our courts have now found were negligent in some of the care they provided.

And scally, also an Independent expert last time I checked, said the labs were operating to international standards.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:07 am**

anonymous_joe wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:You are wasting your time Cammy he’s on a troll

1. They didn’t “have cancer” they had pre-cancerous changes on a biopsy - these are extremely difficult to spot and subject to a lot of individual interpretation

2. If you review slides in retrospect - it’s easier to say ah yeah there were clearly pre-cancerous changes to some cells on that slide. This is because your have the benefit of hindsight knowing that the woman went on to develop cancer. You also have more time to examine the slide as you’re reviewing a small number of slides and not screening a whole population.
Why do you think the RCOG disagreed with you?

You didn’t even read point 2 did you

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:13 am**

Duff Paddy wrote:You are wasting your time Cammy he’s on a troll

1. They didn’t “have cancer” they had pre-cancerous changes on a biopsy - these are extremely difficult to spot and subject to a lot of individual interpretation

2. If you review slides in retrospect - it’s easier to say ah yeah there were clearly pre-cancerous changes to some cells on that slide. This is because your have the benefit of hindsight knowing that the woman went on to develop cancer. You also have more time to examine the slide as you’re reviewing a small number of slides and not screening a whole population.

I'm not on a troll Duff.

AJ is the lawyer who actually believes this sort of shite :

If person X has cancer and a negligent false negative arises, then clearly that person could have been treated earlier.

He doesn't appear to have realised that the women being screened are cancer free at the time of screening. That's the level of ignorance in the legal profession.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:17 am**

EverReady wrote:This is where anon, his mates and the rest of the medical and legal world diverge. Within cancer treatment and scanning their is an acceptable limit of false positives and negatives. As I noted before this is because of a range of sensitivities which includes inflammation, micro tumours etc. Calibration related issues are rare and I would imagine with smears it would be difficult to get it right. For example with myself I had a biopsy out of my neck that was inconclusive but I had diffuse patterns of cancer on a biopsy from a few weeks later. The first biopsy just didn't hit the mark properly as the lump was very apparent. This is the bit that still confuses me. Why did the government agree to any payout. Was it purely for political reasons e.g. not to be seen to fight women's health blah blah . There is no need they should have been stuck for this bar the screening itself was flawed and it appears it was not as the sensitivities were as expected

They it’s just politics. They can’t be seen to be fighting a dying woman in court. As Kelly said because this is rare they will just settle until the HPV vaccine kicks in and this cancer becomes exceedingly rare. If they go after breast check all bets are off though

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:19 am**

It’s how the legal profession thinks:

No footpath and you trip, tough shit.

Footpath with a crack in and you trip, you can sure the person who built the footpath

This is the grotesque world of compo culture that these lads have created in this country

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:27 am**

anonymous_joe wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:You are wasting your time Cammy he’s on a troll

1. They didn’t “have cancer” they had pre-cancerous changes on a biopsy - these are extremely difficult to spot and subject to a lot of individual interpretation

2. If you review slides in retrospect - it’s easier to say ah yeah there were clearly pre-cancerous changes to some cells on that slide. This is because your have the benefit of hindsight knowing that the woman went on to develop cancer. You also have more time to examine the slide as you’re reviewing a small number of slides and not screening a whole population.
Why do you think the RCOG disagreed with you?

Link?

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:55 am**

anonymous_joe wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
danthefan wrote:Is he saying it's either 100% accurate (as in anything in life, an impossibility) or its a failure? Nobody can think that surely.
Sure you can, when there's compensation to be chased.
Admit that it can be less than 100% accurate, but still be effective means that you can't cash in.
The issue is not that there are false negatives.

I'm surprised people are still pretending that's the case. Nobody anywhere has said that.

What has been said repeatedly is that screening can be negligent.

Screening is not foolproof and false negatives are entirely possible.

None of this is in issue.

What is seemingly in issue is whether or not a screening can be done negligently. This does not seem particularly challenging to me, and review by the RCOG has supported that proposition. Some of the screening was negligent.

I am at a loss as to why anybody would now be defending a system that an independent group of experts and our courts have now found were negligent in some of the care they provided.

Really? That the first I've heard. I was under the impression that the screening stats were within norms, but the failing was in the communication standards with the patients.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:10 pm**

EverReady wrote:The numbers are huge though for cervical and the payouts seem unsustainable.

They are and as a result so will the entire service, to the determent of every woman in Ireland. As soon as the lawyers got involved in this, this vital, free, service was doomed. Take a bow, muppets.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 12:14 pm**

The real disgusting attempt is from lawyers and toerags like AJ to link this to misogyny.

Fúcking pond life

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:49 pm**

How’s the health now ER?

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:22 pm**

EverReady wrote:
Conspicuous wrote:How’s the health now ER?
Good yeah. Back out jogging and generally living again. I was in a tiny percentage with regard to getting through the side effects quickly so am very lucky

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:27 pm**

EverReady wrote:
Conspicuous wrote:How’s the health now ER?
Good yeah. Back out jogging and generally living again. I was in a tiny percentage with regard to getting through the side effects quickly so am very lucky

glad to hear you're on the mend ER .... you're the funniest fvcker on here.... much better than mullet who's only good for winding up the brits (and Jumper) these days

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:43 pm**

EverReady wrote:
Conspicuous wrote:How’s the health now ER?
Good yeah. Back out jogging and generally living again. I was in a tiny percentage with regard to getting through the side effects quickly so am very lucky

Great to hear that

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:57 pm**

The cycling conversation always goes down well here

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.4094339
how has he only got a suspended sentence? it sounds like he literally ran over the guy (after narrowly missing him a few minutes earlier) then fled the scene.

He has six previous convictions, including dangerous driving in 2005.

The guy sounds like a complete hot-head but he's just given a slap on the wrist. He plays golf though, which is relevant for some reason.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:08 pm**

de_Selby wrote:He plays golf though

I forgive him.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:12 pm**

de_Selby wrote:The cycling conversation always goes down well here

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.4094339
how has he only got a suspended sentence? it sounds like he literally ran over the guy (after narrowly missing him a few minutes earlier) then fled the scene.

He has six previous convictions, including dangerous driving in 2005.
The guy sounds like a complete hot-head but he's just given a slap on the wrist. He plays golf though, which is relevant for some reason.

If you need to ask, you won't understand

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:22 pm**

Bit shocking really.

Judge Martin Nolan

Less shocking when you read this.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:45 pm**

Read what? Does the judge have a track record, so to speak?

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:17 pm**

Gavin Duffy wrote:Read what? Does the judge have a track record, so to speak?

If you ever read a headline which sounds ridiculous re: sentencing for serious crimes, you can be guaranteed he'll be involved.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:50 am**

Record numbers on trolleys in A&E’s yesterday. Being a Monday this is the weekend backlog and largely down to the lack of a 7 day health care service. The Newstalk presenters made a good point this morning - how come the INMO are so quiet? This time last year they were on every media outlet daily about the crisis. The answer? They got their money. The unions couldn’t care less about the health care service they just want money and concessions for their members. Liam Doran should never be taken seriously when giving out about the health care service in Ireland.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:54 am**

Duff Paddy wrote:Record numbers on trolleys in A&E’s yesterday. Being a Monday this is the weekend backlog and largely down to the lack of a 7 day health care service. The Newstalk presenters made a good point this morning - how come the INMO are so quiet? This time last year they were on every media outlet daily about the crisis. The answer? They got their money. The unions couldn’t care less about the health care service they just want money and concessions for their members. Liam Doran should never be taken seriously when giving out about the health care service in Ireland.

That would be a first

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:40 am**

Duff Paddy wrote:Record numbers on trolleys in A&E’s yesterday. Being a Monday this is the weekend backlog and largely down to the lack of a 7 day health care service. The Newstalk presenters made a good point this morning - how come the INMO are so quiet? This time last year they were on every media outlet daily about the crisis. The answer? They got their money. The unions couldn’t care less about the health care service they just want money and concessions for their members. Liam Doran should never be taken seriously when giving out about the health care service in Ireland.

when a country spends over 10% of its GDP on a service that is run purely for the benefit of those working in it you have a problem.
When 52% of a population in a country with a 4.5% unemployment rate have unlimited free access to healthcare, you have a problem.
When you subsidize the education of medical students to over 1 million euro and let them leave the country with no claw back upon graduation...... you have a problem.

Unless there is a massive re-think of the political mindset in relation to the Irish health service, nothing is ever going to change.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:05 am**

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/1 ... 26934.html

How does an idiot like Ross keep his position in the Cabinet ?. Has this tool ever done the public any good ?

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:10 am**

The Sun God wrote:https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/1 ... 26934.html

How does an idiot like Ross keep his position in the Cabinet ?. Has this tool ever done the public any good ?

What's wrong with this proposal exactly?

Planet Rugby Forum

Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby

Re: Rugby NAMA thread Revisited Rugby