European Courts and the Charlie Gard decision

[Guest Lady Penelope]

Just now, Cuntybaws said:

He who flounces and slinks away, lives to multi-quote another day.

The Lady Penelope likes this comment

[Ape™️]

17 minutes ago, Cuntybaws said:

Ding, Ding, Ding, you're getting totally pwned here. Best to simply accept the bitch-slapping and slink away.

It's just a flesh wound.

[Guest DingTheRioja]

1 hour ago, Cuntybaws said:

Ding, Ding, Ding, you're getting totally pwned here. Best to simply accept the bitch-slapping and slink away.

Come on, "pwned"...?  Are you really going to use that?

Wicked brah!

[Guest Bill Stickers]

6 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

Come on, "pwned"...?  Are you really going to use that?

Wicked brah!

Ding, I think this is your lowest ebb.

Listen to baws, he's done the rounds. He's only got your best interests at heart.

 You stuck your head above the parapet and got fucked. Go back to being part of the great unwashed. 

[Guest DingTheRioja]

Just now, Bill Stickers said:

Ding, I think this is your lowest ebb.

Listen to baws, he's done the rounds. He's only got your best interests at heart.

 You stuck your head above the parapet and got fucked. Go back to being part of the great unwashed. 

When someone brings up numbers that mean fuckall, then no, they didn't win, it generally means they were wrong.  

 

Quote

Since there are currently 104 such committees licenced to oversee medical research by the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority and that this is in addition to countless other hospital, university and commercial interest ethics committees

 

As for an ethics committee being "licenced"...

[Guest Bill Stickers]

Just now, DingTheRioja said:

When someone brings up numbers that mean fuckall, then no, they didn't win, it generally means they were wrong.  

As for an ethics committee being "licenced"...

I'm still not convinced ding. I'm still leaning towards you being a grubby little bullshitter.

[Guest DingTheRioja]

22 minutes ago, Bill Stickers said:

I'm still not convinced ding. I'm still leaning towards you being a grubby little bullshitter.

You just have a tendency to stick with what you know.  Which is shit, generally on the end of your tongue.

[Guest Bill Stickers]

23 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

You just have a tendency to stick with what you know.  Which is shit, generally on the end of your tongue.

8,000 posts of this shit and you're still going. One does have to marvel at your resilience. 

[Guest DingTheRioja]

Just now, Bill Stickers said:

8,000 posts of this shit and you're still going. One does have to marvel at your resilience. 

One does have to marvel at why you were let out from under the patio, given your references to other members families within days of release...

Guess it won't be long eh Bill? You missing them worms and the drymix seasoning?

[Mrs Roops]

2 hours ago, DingTheRioja said:

When someone brings up numbers that mean fuckall, then no, they didn't win, it generally means they were wrong.  

 

 

As for an ethics committee being "licenced"...

Oh FFS.

The RHA is the NHS agency which manages the REC's but this is done under the statutory auspices of the UKECA who oversee, licence and regulate the committees. I do not wish to bore punters further but there is also a dotted line responsibility to various EU agencies who audit and oversee EU directives, moot at present due to Brexit.

For those who have managed to stay awake through this farrago of faffing this has come about because my innocent question as to what capacity you work with ethics committees which has somehow been interpreted as a doxing attempt - ridiculous when we see how extensive ethics committees are not only in scope, but also the extent of the staff numbers involved both directly and indirectly. This is just the NHS funded committees, add to that the defence and security, further education and commercial entities together with the ancillary and support services and you'll see this is quite a racket. I haven't even mentioned the same third parties who work for professional lobbyists...

[Guest DingTheRioja]

Just now, Mrs Roops said:

Oh FFS.

The RHA is the NHS agency which manages the REC's but this is done under the statutory auspices of the UKECA who oversee, licence and regulate the committees. I do not wish to bore punters further but there is also a dotted line responsibility to various EU agencies who audit and oversee EU directives, moot at present due to Brexit.

For those who have managed to stay awake through this farrago of faffing this has come about because my innocent question as to what capacity you work with ethics committees which has somehow been interpreted as a doxing attempt - ridiculous when we see how extensive ethics committees are not only in scope, but also the extent of the staff numbers involved both directly and indirectly. This is just the NHS funded committees, add to that the defence and security, further education and commercial entities together with the ancillary and support services and you'll see this is quite a racket. I haven't even mentioned the same third parties who work for professional lobbyists...

Licence? Really? Still?  The committees are part of the RHA which is an SHA.  An SHA is part of the NHS and therefore the committees require no "licencing" since they are part of a statutory body.  Committees are not "licenced" by anyone.

The only Ethics Committees that count, are those in this organisation, why? because no research can be undertaken within the NHS, within NHS buildings, or with NHS patients without approval from the RHA and it's committee(s) in the respective area(s), irrespective of any other real or pseudo ethics committees from hospitals/universities/pharma.

Still, where are the 104 committees that you mention? 

 

If you can't get your fucking facts right, then how can any of the rest of your shite be comprehended?

 

 

 

[Roadkill]

33 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

Oh FFS.

The RHA is the NHS agency which manages the REC's but this is done under the statutory auspices of the UKECA who oversee, licence and regulate the committees. I do not wish to bore punters further but there is also a dotted line responsibility to various EU agencies who audit and oversee EU directives, moot at present due to Brexit.

For those who have managed to stay awake through this farrago of faffing this has come about because my innocent question as to what capacity you work with ethics committees which has somehow been interpreted as a doxing attempt - ridiculous when we see how extensive ethics committees are not only in scope, but also the extent of the staff numbers involved both directly and indirectly. This is just the NHS funded committees, add to that the defence and security, further education and commercial entities together with the ancillary and support services and you'll see this is quite a racket. I haven't even mentioned the same third parties who work for professional lobbyists...

 

19 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

Licence? Really? Still?  The committees are part of the RHA which is an SHA.  An SHA is part of the NHS and therefore the committees require no "licencing" since they are part of a statutory body.  Committees are not "licenced" by anyone.

The only Ethics Committees that count, are those in this organisation, why? because no research can be undertaken within the NHS, within NHS buildings, or with NHS patients without approval from the RHA and it's committee(s) in the respective area(s), irrespective of any other real or pseudo ethics committees from hospitals/universities/pharma.

Still, where are the 104 committees that you mention? 

 

If you can't get your fucking facts right, then how can any of the rest of your shite be comprehended?

 

 

 

Is this some weird form of autistic flirting? Last time I saw so many acronyms I was reading the wikipedia page for Soviet FROG systems...

[Guest DingTheRioja]

Just now, Roadkill said:

 

Is this some weird form of autistic flirting? Last time I saw so many acronyms I was reading the wikipedia page for Soviet FROG systems...

She will not post that fucking photo of the wine glass on the bench....

[Guest Snatch]

1 hour ago, Mrs Roops said:

I do not wish to bore punters further

But you did didn't you. You carried on and on and on.

Shut the fuck up about it. Your right, whatever it is your on about.

 

[Guest Snatch]

1 hour ago, DingTheRioja said:

Licence? Really? Still?  The committees are part of the RHA which is an SHA.  An SHA is part of the NHS and therefore the committees require no "licencing" since they are part of a statutory body.  Committees are not "licenced" by anyone.

The only Ethics Committees that count, are those in this organisation, why? because no research can be undertaken within the NHS, within NHS buildings, or with NHS patients without approval from the RHA and it's committee(s) in the respective area(s), irrespective of any other real or pseudo ethics committees from hospitals/universities/pharma.

Still, where are the 104 committees that you mention? 

 

If you can't get your fucking facts right, then how can any of the rest of your shite be comprehended?

 

 

 

Dingers, she's right as always. Please, stop replying so she'll stop replying.

[Eric Cuntman]

4 minutes ago, Snatch said:

Dingers, she's right as always. Please, stop replying so she'll stop replying.

Careful Snatch, admin will release another sociopath from the cooler to 'duff you up', just a theory, but the current spate of parole licences being granted seems to coincide with the mods getting a bit of stick from some members. Cue the 'paranoid bollocks' posts.

[Guest Snatch]

1 minute ago, Eric Cuntman said:

Careful Snatch, admin will release another sociopath from the cooler to 'duff you up', just a theory, but the current spate of parole licences being granted seems to coincide with the mods getting a bit of stick from some members. Cue the 'paranoid bollocks' posts.

Should I be worried Eric?

[Eric Cuntman]

16 minutes ago, Snatch said:

Should I be worried Eric?

No, just thinking out loud.

[Ape™️]

1 hour ago, Roadkill said:

 

Is this some weird form of autistic flirting? Last time I saw so many acronyms I was reading the wikipedia page for Soviet FROG systems...

One of them must be wrong, and since I neither know, and more importantly care which one of them it is, it's best that they both shut the fuck up.

[ratcum]

Far too much reasoned argument and heated debate on here. Lets talk about double teaming nuns whilst suspended under giraffe racing. Imagine the form book you'd have to wade through before placing a bet?

[Guest deebom]

On 7/2/2017 at 10:03 PM, Cuntybaws said:

Oh dear, you're not one those secret NAME wankers are you?

Don't tell him, Pike!

Nah, they're all cunts who don't think properly. But it's true, you signing, so you're contracting to something. No one ever asks what that contract is. 

[Mrs Roops]

3 hours ago, DingTheRioja said:

Licence? Really? Still?  The committees are part of the RHA which is an SHA.  An SHA is part of the NHS and therefore the committees require no "licencing" since they are part of a statutory body.  Committees are not "licenced" by anyone.

The only Ethics Committees that count, are those in this organisation, why? because no research can be undertaken within the NHS, within NHS buildings, or with NHS patients without approval from the RHA and it's committee(s) in the respective area(s), irrespective of any other real or pseudo ethics committees from hospitals/universities/pharma.

Still, where are the 104 committees that you mention? 

 

If you can't get your fucking facts right, then how can any of the rest of your shite be comprehended?

Indeed. SHA's were abolished more than four years ago, The NHS is a publicly funded healthcare provider, not a statutory body. Tell me, how does getting the "fucking facts right" work for you? Your ignorance of even the most basic of facts totally demolishes your argument which is a shame. Even if your "facts" were correct the NHS would not be allowed to regulate itself. What next, doctors who work in NHS properties, treating NHS patients are also licenced by the NHS? Of course all this is irrelevant as you seem to have ignored the link I uploaded which confirms the UKECE is the statutory and regulatory authority with regards to RECs.

Ding I have given facts backed up by documentary evidence. You have provided a skewered interpretation of the facts to suit your argument.

[Ape™️]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Roops said:

Indeed. SHA's were abolished more than four years ago, The NHS is a publicly funded healthcare provider, not a statutory body. Tell me, how does getting the "fucking facts right" work for you? Your ignorance of even the most basic of facts totally demolishes your argument which is a shame. Even if your "facts" were correct the NHS would not be allowed to regulate itself. What next, doctors who work in NHS properties, treating NHS patients are also licenced by the NHS? Of course all this is irrelevant as you seem to have ignored the link I uploaded which confirms the UKECE is the statutory and regulatory authority with regards to RECs.

Ding I have given facts backed up by documentary evidence. You have provided a skewered interpretation of the facts to suit your argument.

Oh no, now Elephant Head is going to come on and start singing.

[Guest Bill Stickers]

In deepest, darkest Yorkshire, the autistic screeching of a vanquished Ding can be heard echoing across the dales. 

 

[Ape™️]

Just now, Bill Stickers said:

In deepest, darkest Yorkshire, the autistic screeching of a vanquished Ding can be heard echoing across the dales. 

 

I suspect it's the sound of frantic typing echoing across the dales, as he desperately tries to put together a viable counter-bore to Roops' tedious reply.