36 replies to this topic

[Leeds Wire]

LINK

The last line in particular baffles me with regard to Prince Charles' role. Is it saying he has a remit to advise government?

I also fail to comprehend how we are not entitled know what he has has been lobbying advising about. Surely this is what 'freedom of information' is all about?

Perhaps someone could enlighten me....

Edited by Leeds Wire, 16 October 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[MikeW]

Publishing the "frank" views would "seriously undermine" his ability to fulfil his duties as King.

Brilliant. Charles' reign will be the last chance we have in my lifetime to bring in a Republic.

[gingerjon]

Look over there: Kate's crying at an orphanage ...

[getdownmonkeyman]

Sick of hearing the whining wingnut. I don't like the Chelsea Barracks redevelopment, so I will bitch and whine at the funders through the back door, to get the funding pulled.

Spoilt little brat.

[Padge]

I am far from being a Royalist, but as it stands part of the role of the monarch is to offer advice to the politicians who operate in their name, it is after all HM Government and not the Governments Monarch. As the heir to throne and since Liz is getting on a bit I see no reason for it to be unreasonable for the heir to be treated with the respect and privacy that the reigning monarch has.

I would sooner the monarchy, if we have to continue with it, offers advice and opinion in strict privacy rather than for it to be public and politicised.

As long as we have the system we have I prefer the status quo.

[John Rhino]

I am far from being a Royalist, but as it stands part of the role of the monarch is to offer advice to the politicians who operate in their name, it is after all HM Government and not the Governments Monarch. As the heir to throne and since Liz is getting on a bit I see no reason for it to be unreasonable for the heir to be treated with the respect and privacy that the reigning monarch has.

I would sooner the monarchy, if we have to continue with it, offers advice and opinion in strict privacy rather than for it to be public and politicised.

As long as we have the system we have I prefer the status quo.

I doubt he was wriring to the Labour party saying "way to go, Tony"

He will have been quizing ministers along the lines of his own (right wing) petty predudices. Remember his support for bogus medicine wastes the NHS millions as no one dare say no.

It's stated that releasing his letters would affect his ability to be an impartial King. No more needs to be said.

[gingerjon]

Remember his support for bogus medicine wastes the NHS millions as no one dare say no.

There's £20m out of the NHS budget for homeopathy pretty much because of his nutjob beliefs.

[Padge]

There's £20m out of the NHS budget for homeopathy pretty much because of his nutjob beliefs.

How much does the NHS spend on placebo's every year out of curiosity?

[longboard]

How much does the NHS spend on placebo's every year out of curiosity?

I think that little will be spent by the NHS on placebos out of curiousity, but some will be spent for research purposes.

[gingerjon]

How much does the NHS spend on placebo's every year out of curiosity?

I'm not sure. I know Phil Hammond has written that in the past he used to inject water (or similar) or prescribe sugar pills for occasional reassurance but I *believe* the practice isn't that common.

The Sainted Dr Ben has written in Bad Pharma that testing against placebo is useless for most medicines and treatments.

[JohnM]

The Sainted Dr Ben

Quite, though to be honest, I did fancy his mother quite a bit. ( NOTE: Not in a BBC Cone of Silence^® sort of way, of course)

[Leeds Wire]

That reminds me:

[Northern Sol]

There's £20m out of the NHS budget for homeopathy pretty much because of his nutjob beliefs.

Nonsense. It's crazy to imagine that he has that level of influence. There are committees that decide exactly what doctors are able to perscribe and they are based on evidence. If they perscribe tap water that has been vaguely near a particular plant then it's because there are a lot of "clients" (not patients any more) with nutjob beliefs who might get some kind of placebo effect from them.

[John Rhino]

Nonsense. It's crazy to imagine that he has that level of influence. There are committees that decide exactly what doctors are able to perscribe and they are based on evidence. If they perscribe tap water that has been vaguely near a particular plant then it's because there are a lot of "clients" (not patients any more) with nutjob beliefs who might get some kind of placebo effect from them.

How can a fact be nonsense? Try looking up the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Medicine. What I didn't know was that fortunately it closed 18 months ago for fraud.

I has however re-opened as The College of Medicine (yeah right!) and continues to promote the Prince's "vision"

Try googling "alternative medicine in the NHS" to get a taste of the destructive influence he has had.

We have had many nut jobs as king in the past but it's time we stopped. I'm not anti royalist by any means - just anti woo of all flavours!

[JohnM]

[Padge]

There's £20m out of the NHS budget for homeopathy pretty much because of his nutjob beliefs.

From NHS News August 2010



How much does homeopathy cost the NHS each year?

Exact figures for the cost of homeopathy are not collected. However, there are currently four homeopathic hospitals in England, and in the region of 25,000 homeopathic items are prescribed each year. Total costs are thought to be in the region of 3-4 million a year.

[Northern Sol]

How can a fact be nonsense?

When it's an assertion not a fact.

Try looking up the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Medicine. What I didn't know was that fortunately it closed 18 months ago for fraud.

I has however re-opened as The College of Medicine (yeah right!) and continues to promote the Prince's "vision"

Try googling "alternative medicine in the NHS" to get a taste of the destructive influence he has had.

We have had many nut jobs as king in the past but it's time we stopped. I'm not anti royalist by any means - just anti woo of all flavours!

Try google NIICE and find out who makes the decisions in the NHS.

The fact that a college exists doesn't prove that they set policy for the NHS.

[gingerjon]

From NHS News August 2010



How much does homeopathy cost the NHS each year?

Exact figures for the cost of homeopathy are not collected. However, there are currently four homeopathic hospitals in England, and in the region of 25,000 homeopathic items are prescribed each year. Total costs are thought to be in the region of 3-4 million a year.

That's still an in the region figure of 3-4 million to give people pills with no medicine in them.

[gingerjon]

When it's an assertion not a fact.



Try google NIICE and find out who makes the decisions in the NHS.

The fact that a college exists doesn't prove that they set policy for the NHS.

I'll be impressed if you can find a recommendation from NICE that supports the use of homeopathy in the management of any condition.

[Northern Sol]

I'll be impressed if you can find a recommendation from NICE that supports the use of homeopathy in the management of any condition.

There aren't any of course. I'm trying to get a certain person to understand that decision on treatments don't come down to "let's do what the prince suggested" or "that phoney college thinks we should give water to our patients maybe we should do that".

In fact the lack of recommendations from NIICE (who prefer treatments that have evidence that they work) is the reason why PCTs are scaling back their homeopathy budget.

The reason that we have any at all is that parliament authorised their use when a local doctor requests it.

All that from a quick google and no mention of Prince Charles anywhere.