RlCO

I bet they're claiming housing benefit, the dodgy fuckers

You can't help thinking that if this had been an alchoholic drug taking white trash lower than working class scumbag that had through gross negligence let her 3 year old get killed by the families illegal dangerous dog, she would have been vilified in the press and been locked up and the key thrown away

Now all they have to do is explain where they hid the body for 5 weeks and moved it under the full glare of the world's press.

Denied http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/6986898.stm Love the bit about Boro's attendances

So presumably, the normal trend is -17, 15, -5, 12, -14, 5 ... ? You're saying it's rubbish because it hasn't happened in Ireland or California? That's your argument? Has Ireland even done a study? Are Californians as unfit and prone to heart attacks as Jocks? Did they have similar rates of smoking? Patently obvious this isn't any kind of argument Why are you on about statins when I asked you about your claim of hiding different reporting methods? Do you even remember what you claimed? i.e. they do/don't count heart attacks differently now, coincidentally at the same time as the ban was introduced and unnoticed by any of the attendees of the conference. Fair enough if you think politicians are lying to you and you think that realisation is unique to your wierd little mind, you're still ignoring the basic fact this news report was produced because of a scientific conference, in the full glare of all those attending, and isn't anything like your crap about new labour funding statements or waiting list figures, which ultimately have no relevance at all at the end of the day, unless you really do think in such simplistic terms

But Newcastle can get rid of the 'Geordie'

Yet again I could answer all your "points", but then all you'd do is back none of that up, and ignore what I said and try a new tangent of pantishness. You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such. As I said before if you don't like that, then don't DO it. All I've done is post a news story, which you subsequently can't defend your critique of, Apart from repeatedly and absolutely again and again and again, above. Apart from that, aye. Pointing out myriad examples of political shenanigans, which clearly you. Are you being a "cock" now? It fits your drivel VERY well. And now you've basically resorted to "I know you are so what am I?" Nice, now grow up and take being made to look a complete fool like... well something other than a very sore loser. Where have you explained a 17% variation as normal? or explained changed reporting that bypassed everyone at the conference? I really can't be bothered to address the rest of your crap, you could clearly go on like that for hours ignoring reality

Yet again I could answer all your "points", but then all you'd do is back none of that up, and ignore what I said and try a new tangent of pantishness. You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such. As I said before if you don't like that, then don't DO it. All I've done is post a news story, which you subsequently can't defend your critique of, preferring to talk about New Labour funding and generally being a cock. I doubt you can answer the points, otherwise given your unique personality you would have. So here you are, using words such a pantishness "You've basically said nothing in this thread, backed up nothing, and done little but attempted to spout bollocks and then ran away when it was pointed out as such." - you could be talking about yourself really

Yes and I must have missed the bit where you actually backed up anything you said, or indeed understood most anything written in this thread. Politics clearly you. A conference took place today with an accompanying news story, yet only you have cottoned on to the evil conspiracy at work, citing New Labour funding statements and NHS waiting lists as evidence. I've missed from you within your snide remarks and petty insults an explanation of how 17% is a normal variation in a 3% trend unworthy of reporting, or how a massive change in reporting procedure goes unnoticed by an entire conference

I like how his Dad announces this when the window has just shut. I would put him up for offers in Jan, then offer him the highest bid, minus 10% for aggravation.

I must have missed the scientific conference that deals with the funding announcements of new labour made on the very same day as the conference.

Maybe it appears on a slide somewhere, maybe it was just a verbal publicity "hook", either way it's likely complete rubbish in the context (as explained). Don't keep spouting utter rubbish and then refuse (or just be unable) to back it up, if you don't want to end up looking like a fool. Simple as that. What can't I back up? It was reported as a 3% maximum drop on the news, you are assuming it is an average from a quote that says no such thing. You are the one who can't explain how -17% is a normal variation around this (presumably balanced out by 15% increases in other years), or how it otherwise arises from a different reporting system that by chance no-one has picked up even though it's pretty crucial to the point being made.

As already stated, I don't know who Gary Smith is. So you're just mad then?

Can you actually read? (I guess not given the whole 3% thing) See above, there's about 4 published studies being presented on the effects it (the ban) has had, none of which are particularly unexpected, dramatic or headline grabbing (this is actually the meat of the story and most of the conference I guess). Then there is the "17%/20%" thing which is not published (at all) and seems to be just a PR headline grabber of a completely spurious and massaged statistical comparison of things that cannot really be compared (i.e. as said a load of bollocks). Exactly what part of that is beyond your capability to grasp? Well, I'm finding it hard to believe the 17% figure doesn't appear anywhere in the conference, considering the news story was prompted by the conference. But whatever, you're right, I don't particularly want keep being insulted by someone like yourself, so believe what you want, no skin off my nose.

Did this Gary Smith fuck your wife? Or are you going to make your obvious grievance public?

I think that cocknocker McLaren has an inferiority complex. Micheal Owen should be allowed to pick who he wants, he'll still be playing for England long after he's got the sack, the ginger twat

That made me laugh for some reason. I think the trip to the NW is hampered by the Pennines, there are no high speed lines that way, even though they call it the trans pennine express

This news story exists because of the conference happening today. Are they all in on it then? Or do they just not watch the news?

Can't decide. Is the new Emirates stadium worth a 5 hour trip as a car passenger? I don't like being a passenger

Many things, especially as they like just received data to crunch (they weren't there checking every admission I'm 100% sure, or even any admission most likely). Even as Renton rightly points out release or wide spread prescription of drugs such as statins (Scotland's NHS is much richer per head since devolution than say England or even Wales). Clearly the closest you've ever come to stats was once misspelling SATs. Without looking at the data I'd imagine it was a -3% annual trend across the last decade, BUT that does NOT mean that it was a regular ,regimented and uniform 3% drop each year. Most likely the actual figure (each year) would have been anything from a large decrease (-10%) well ABOVE 3% to even a large INCREASE (+10%+) in some years. Only when you smoothed out such yearly variation would a 3% annual reduction appear, in this case they are comparing a POINT EFFECT with a 10 year average.... which even in the most controlled situations is difficult to really do, and in this case may well be highly misleading indeed. As I said before, it was a maximum of 3% drop previously, not a trend

I'm just realistic (I also note you deleted your post and didn't answer my points ), only a fool believes what a politician says (or anyone employed by one) unless all doubt has been ferreted away. Although equally said politicians do rely upon mugs to stay in power, without them they might even have to earn their money. It may not be that, yearly variation over the general 3% reduction could account for quite a bit or all of it, and I'd suspect that is probably the most likely answer. But yes they could be classified as many things other than heart attack admissions directly, this could be done by reclassifying condition from one catch all to several closely related things, or indeed by massaging the admission figure in other way such as not including certain types of admission, GP referral or whatever. Such things are no more amazing than "reducing" waiting lists by introducing waiting lists to get ON waiting lists or indeed ignoring perhaps 45%+ of inflationary pressure for political reasons. Closely related things? Like what? Why would this have escaped the researchers attention? And how on earth does variation on a 3% trend produce a one off result of 17%?

This kind of puts paid to Shep's claim of just being a fan, rather he clearly gets off on being the boss with the associated limelight. I wouldn't want a Leeds fan running NUFC

why? what else caused the drop? Pure yearly variation (given the small sample size and time scale, very possible). But 17% over all and 20% reductions in non-smokers is a HUGE reduction in 12-18 months, beyond anything even widely dreamed. So either smoking (and especially casual exposure to second hand smoke) is more dangerous to ones health than even the most rabid anti-smoker has ever, ever, ever dreamed OR there's something "wrong"/missed out/misleading with those stats. Also if this were the case then why have figures of a similar scale (20%+) NOT been seen else where? You DO understand how Labour largely "shortened" NHS waiting lists don't you? Or indeed how inflation is now recorded at a lower level (as a significant part is now conveniently ignored in the new measure)? Politicians changing the rules of measurement for political headlines/gain, who would have thought it? What a cynical man you are Just tell me how you remove 17% of heart attacks from the list. What are they now classified as, severe pins and needles?

100% increase in dodgy statistics IMO. 9 hospitals over an 18 month period isn't a very large sample to begin with, but a 17% total drop and a 20% drop in non-smoker heart attack admissions is a HUGE drop for such a time scale. (although interestingly this is another example of the "stop smoking and you will live forever" thing IMO) So either there's some bias or fluctuation within the figures (given the small sample and time scale, that is fairly likely) or there's something else (possibly fishy) going on. the previous yearly drops have been 3% at most, presumably on the same amount of samples and the same recording methods

17% drop in heart attacks after the ban http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinbu...ast/6986554.stm