Money-grabbing BMA medics see patients as collateral damage in their single-minded pursuit of cash
YOU'LL never see a poor doctor.
The old saying is borne out by the revelation that striking junior medics can earn as much as £100,000 a year.
2
2
Remember these are the grasping mercenaries Labour immediately handed a 28.9 per cent pay rise after the mayhem they caused last year.
Sure enough the Marxist militants of the British Medical Association saw this as an invitation to strike for even more and slapped in a staggering 29 per cent pay demand.
The union fanatics use despicable tactics to keep strikes secret from trusts, making it harder for them to plan cover.
Dr Ross Nieuwoudt, co-leader of the BMA's resident doctors committee, told his members: 'You do NOT have a legal responsibility to disclose whether you are striking.''
This kind of merciless cruelty would make Arthur Scargill proud. Last-minute strikes are bad enough in any public service dispute but in the field of patient care this amounts to a dereliction of duty which the BMA must know will cost lives.
Not all doctors go along with this madness. Almost half of the BMA membership didn't vote in the strike ballot. Professor Lord Winston, the IVF pioneer and highly respected medic, has understandably quit the union in disgust.
As he says: 'Doctors need to be reminded that every time they have a patient in front of them, they have someone who is frightened and in pain. It's important they consider their own responsibility much more seriously.'
Wise words.
But totally lost on those money-grabbing BMA medics who see patients as collateral damage in their single-minded pursuit of cash.
It makes Zero sense
SIR Keir Starmer seems profoundly deaf to dire industry warnings that his crazy £800billion dash for Net Zero will cripple the economy.
But will the PM listen to his own MPs?
A commission headed by Labour MP Henry Tufnell says eco levies imposed on businesses to curb carbon emissions could destroy manufacturing jobs for good.
These ideologically driven taxes are far higher than those imposed by other countries, undermining our global competitiveness.
They could force giant oil and gas producers to move abroad.
When Britain is mired in financial woes, it is ludicrous to be chasing unaffordable and unachievable climate dreams.
When are you going to see sense and scrap Net Zero, PM?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Do not eat warning issued as cult chocolate bar is pulled from shelves amid fears it could kill
A cult Dubai chocolate bar has been urgently recalled by UK food safety chiefs over fears it could trigger fatal allergic reactions. The Neosis Schokolade Love of Dubai bar, a foil-wrapped sweet sold in independent shops and online, contains undeclared peanuts, according to food safety officials. The product is part of a wave of imported Middle Eastern-style chocolates that have surged in popularity thanks to social media—but concerns are growing that many of these bars fail to meet UK food safety standards. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has issued a 'do not eat' warning and ordered an immediate recall, saying the 95g bar poses a serious risk to people with a peanut allergy. All batch codes and best-before dates are affected. The bar is manufactured in Turkey and distributed in Britain by Black Sea Trading Ltd—a company the FSA said has so far been uncontactable. Officials are working with local authorities to ensure the product is removed from sale, and are advising anyone who has purchased it to dispose of it and report where it was bought. Undeclared peanuts can cause anaphylaxis—a rapid, life-threatening allergic reaction that causes the throat to swell, often leading to unconsciousness or death within minutes. More to follow.
Sky News
21 minutes ago
- Sky News
Who will take the fall for the Afghan cover-up?
👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne's on your podcast app👈 Now details of the enormous accidental data breach by a British soldier that put thousands of Afghans' lives at risk can be discussed publicly - Sky News' Sam Coates and Politico's Anne McElvoy try to address some of the biggest questions on this episode. Why did the government break the glass on using a super-injunction? Has anyone been sacked? Why did the Labour government keep the super-injunction in place for so long?
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ben Wallace takes ‘complete responsibility' for Afghan leak - but refuses to apologise for injunction
Sir Ben Wallace has said he takes complete responsibility for the catastrophic data breach which put the lives of up to 100,000 Afghans at risk. After the secret evacuation scheme, costing the taxpayer £7bn, was revealed, the former defence secretary said he makes 'no apology' for seeking the injunction which resulted in it being kept secret for almost two years. But, asked why the official responsible for the leak, in February 2022, Sir Ben said 'I take complete responsibility for the mistake that was made by that person... I was secretary of state for defence'. The leak exposed the details of thousands of Afghans who said they were in danger from the Taliban because of their links to UK forces and now wanted to escape to Britain. The blunder triggered a top secret government operation, codenamed Operation Rubific, which involved 16,000 Afghans being brought to the UK as part of Britain's largest covert peacetime evacuation, with some 8,000 still to come. The whole operation was kept secret from MPs and the public, with ministers even deciding to hide the true reason for the evacuation from parliament. Sir Ben said the decision to apply for the gagging order was 'not a cover-up' and that if the leak had been reported it would have 'put in peril those we needed to help out'. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said his government did not initially apply for a superinjunction to block reporting about the leak. Sir Ben said: "When we applied in August 2023, when I was secretary of state, we didn't apply for superinjunction. We applied for a four-month injunction, a normal injunction. 'I can't speak for the subsequent two years, why a four month injunction became a two-year superinjunction.' Sir Ben was defence secretary from Juny 2019 to August 2023. He defended his initial application for an injunction, adding: "But nevertheless, I think the point here is I took a decision that the most important priority was to protect those people who could have been or were exposed by this data leak in Afghanistan, living amongst the Taliban who had no regard for their safety, or indeed potentially could torture them or murder them. "That was my priority." It came as Defence Secretary John Healey said the person involved in the leak was 'no longer doing the same job'. A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the breach when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban finding out about the leak. Writing in the Telegraph, Sir Ben said that when he was informed of the 'error' he was 'determined that the first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk'. 'I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover-up,' he said. 'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out. 'Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.' Sir Ben left office shortly after the then-government became aware of the breach, having announced some time earlier that he intended to step down as defence secretary. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million. A total of around 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. It is understood that the unnamed official emailed the data outside a secure government system while attempting to verify information, believing the dataset to only have around 150 rows. However, more than 33,000 rows of information were inadvertently sent. Downing Street declined to say on Tuesday whether the official involved had faced disciplinary action or was still employed by the Government. Mr Healey later told the News Agents podcast that 'they are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief' and 'this is bigger than the actions of a single individual'. Pushed on whether anybody had lost their job, Mr Healey said: 'I'm actually not going to get into the personnel matters.' The injunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments. Mr Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the Government in the Commons on Tuesday, and said he had been 'deeply uncomfortable' being unable to speak about it in Parliament. Kemi Badenoch said sorry on behalf of the Conservatives. Speaking to LBC on Tuesday evening, the Tory leader was asked whether she would apologise on behalf of the Conservatives who were in office at the time of the breach. She said: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there… and we are sorry for that. 'That should not happen. And this is one of the tough things about, you know, being a minister, which is why even the Government – the Labour Government, now this didn't happen when they were in power – they are apologising as well.' Between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including the estimated number of family members of the Arap applicants, were affected by the breach and could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained their data, judges said in June 2024. However an independent review, commissioned by the Government in January 2025, concluded last month that the dataset is 'unlikely to significantly shift Taliban understanding of individuals who may be of interest to them'.
