The Taxpayers' Alliance
Who are they exactly? I pay tax, but how dare they claim to speak for me? They've never canvassed my opinion, or invited me to join.
Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust has incurred the wrath of the Sun by spunking £7,500 on a "special room" kitted out to help chaps deliver vital supplies of man oysters. The trust's fertility centre shared the cost of "computer equipment worth £4,625, flat screen TVs costing £2,225 - plus £500 of blue movies" with …
To quote the *other* TaxPayers' Alliance (at www.taxpayersalliance.ORG - yes rather confusing):
"it isn't an alliance of ordinary taxpayers at all. It is an alliance of right-wing ideologues. Its academic advisory council is a who's who of the proponents of discredited Thatcherite policies, including Eamonn Butler and Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute, academics Patrick Minford and Kenneth Minogue, and former Institute of Directors policy head Ruth Lea."
So no, they don't speak for you, they speak for people who are already richer than we'll ever be and want to stay that way.
Given the amount of malware and nastiness that tends to lurk on porn sites, it seems far safer to offer them videos/DVDs rather than an Internet connection. P.S. I wonder if the £500 of porn includes any specialised fetish stuff for those who aren't interested in anorexic Barbie dolls.
I like the TPA logic: "here's a cable, it's a high speed internet connection, enjoy your viewing! --- that saves the NHS buying two TVs".
Or do they think that two pc's plus screens would be equally free as the bother of keeping these malware-free --- two internet-facing computers left alone with the unsupervised w*nkers seems to be asking for trouble.
>>>>"Rhythm magazines" can get very tatty over time, with too much use...erm so I am led to believe.
Surely some sort of music stand would solve this problem, and give plenty of re-use. As well as freeing up the other hand for texting, eating cream cake or interchangeable use for those ambidextrous wankers...
This post has been deleted by its author
Erm, this is a shared facility; the NHS didn't stump up all the costs & it probably cost alot more in managerial junkets/meetings to organise than the equipment itself. Personally I applaud such schemes - a friend of mine had to give a "sample" some years ago - he was ushered into a cold, dimly lit grubby room furnished with a basic plastic chair and a wonky legged table and some well thumbed copies of certain low quality magazines. Understandably he had some trouble in producing a sample under such conditions. A well kitted out room should help to stimulate a more reliable and faster response from the patient/donor whilst helping to reduce the fear/embarassment suffered.
TA are a bunch of right-wing UKIP rejects - if anything they make the UKP look like a bunch of lightweight liberals. They'd prefer a big union flag to raise thier feelings to where they would attempt to keep the Empire running. That or just praying to a figurine of Mrs T for fertility. .
They don't want any old Thomas, Richard or Harold (who may not actually be English) procreating.
You have to do the deed in a toilet on another ward. Nowhere in that section to do the deed. Quite how you're supposed to produce quality jizz for testing or insemination when you're stuck in a cubicle stinking of crapola I have no idea. Add to that blocking up a toilet for a (potentially desperate and about to soil themselves) patient and overall it left a very unsatisfactory experience all round.
£7.5k may be a bit much for such a room but I'd rather have that than the stinking "wankers' karzi" any day.
I wonder if the room is in use outside normal working hours. It may have been approved by senior NHS managers, so they could spank their own monkey. Just sayin'.
Struggling to find reasons why they were justified:
- there may be a legitimate case of wanting dudes to produce good quality and quantity of spunk; it might just be necessary. It must waste a lot of time when people can't choke the chicken - tick-tock, tick-tock; time is money.
- Also, in this day and age, I feel people have become 'spoiled' in terms of pr0n.
How much? Less than 10 grand. And it hasn't exactly been wasted - the equipment, while sounding a bit on the pricey side and a touch excessive (why TV plural?), is actually being used; although I suspect that it would have been a lot cheaper to use the chief exec's cast-off laptops without wiping the contents (ugh!) first - AND they'd have got better, but probably illegal, porn.
Let's face it, it's not exactly on a par with the billions extra over 30 years that the various NHS PFI schemes are costing.
IT (£4,625), a telly (£2,225) and some DVDs (£500), and managed to spend £7,500, is this a euphemism for "subsidising a private facility"? Or are the Sun and the TPA just bad at adding up numbers?
Also, closing one's eyes is basically free, if you ignore the initial setup costs (which are met by the service user, not the provider).
...no not that quote
Hey, £7.5k is a tad expensive, but I wouldn't like to use crispy second-hand (litterally) magazines, plus it recognises the value of our wigglies, in these new days of loss of anonymity of donors (and decreasing numbers of donors) it should also be recognised it's an important service, I suspect that you're still getting a good bang for your buck, averaged out over the cumming months it's probably quite cheap for each (money) shot.
This post has been deleted by its author
...what is needed is a bigger jug to hold the stuff in!
I'm not joking here...trying to aim at a sub 40mm diameter opening at the critical point is almost effin impossible. I've even tried wedging me todger end in there and it still doesn't work.
Oh and there's never any tissues to mop up the little buggers that have escaped being potted.
The one I went to ,the room was just behind reception, so listening to Tracy and Sharon discussing Darren whilst trying to beat the retreat...well you can imagine,
Yes, it's all very amusing, nudge-nudge.
It's not so funny when you are in the position of having to produce a sample on demand during IVF treatment. Knowing that your partner is about to undergo an uncomfortable and expensive procedure which has a good chance of not working is not really conducive to getting the job done and being stuck in a broom cupboard with a couple of dog-eared, old magazines doesn't help either.
Obviously, me and my missus have gone with the wrong IVF clinic!
(On the NHS for a previous attempt, I found it hilarious that there was a drawer marked 'magazines' in the little room that they provide. Not a stinking karzi in sight though as per previous poster, so can't complain...)
Anonymous, obviously, and Paris... oh, never mind.
Are they affected by the "assisting material" having to meet British legal requirements.
I wonder how the figures stack up.
Is British production smaller than say for example Denmark or Germany (where I hear) their stuff has greater potency?
I wonder what nations with stricter laws do...
"The Sun notes that other fertility centres "provide a similar service by spending less than £100 a year on magazines to stimulate patients". "
Yes, and, if like me you have the good fortune to be in Hammersmith Hospital fertility/embryology dept's sperm production room, you'll note the magazines have a certain disconcerting 'thumbed' quality.
No doubt in the 'Big Society', such wastefulness will be obviated by the millions of volunteers standing by to wank off cancer patients...
That a little assistance from the prospective mother ought to be all that is required, no need for videos or magazines... I'm never likely to be in the situation, but I think I'd find the thought of producing one's future offspring jacking off to some bit of random porn to be rather sordid and demeaning: wouldn't be it be more in the spirit of the event if the partner were to, well, lend a helping hand?
... when I looked at the title on the homepage, I KNEW Lester wrote it!!
But, surely the internet Xh*mster would be a better bet. With a new mouse for each customer, natch - Don't want the nurses to have to clean 3 balls, after all that jazz....
Lester - give the playmobil a miss on this one. Ta muchly.
never heard of you, but it sounds like you are advocating copyright theft here -
"Most people would think all a fertility clinic needs these days is an internet connection"
I can supply many things with only an internet connection, but not so many legally without stumping up some HARD earned ;D
At least bankers aren't the only wankers the taxpayers stumping up for, although I do find it odd that Liverpool males need so much kit to facilitate a simple hand job. Are they a bit thin on imagination, perhaps? I would have thought a CCTV feed from the nurses changing rooms should do it.
NHS organisations receive their internet connection through a private national network called 'N3'. This is filtered and monitored at both a national and local level, and runs over dedicated lines into the buildings.
In order to provide internet access to the websites needed for such a venture would require installing a seperate, local connection with the associated costs of running cables from the local exchange into the building, through 'clean' parts of the hospital to the required area.
The cost of doing this would be far more than £7,500.
As to why they need an expensive 'wank suite' compared to a pile of suspiciously crispy jazz mags? I can only assume cleanliness, and wanting to attract more doners are the reasoning.
Specs, for the geek response ;)