Has the Conservative Party lost all sense of competence

What about the workers who are owed over ten thousand pounds?
Which company was that Jen? When I looked through the list, it seemed to be made up of high numbers of workers owed smaller amounts (under £100). I know for Primark it was £23.75 per worker. £10k is an incredible amount - it would take a full time worker earning £1 an hour under minimum wage nearly 6 years to create that sort of underpayment.

Bournemouth Brewing Group Limited, Poole BH17, failed to pay £11,387.84 to 1 worker.

Edward Mackay Contractor Ltd, Highland KW9, failed to pay £51,403.65 to 4 workers.

Thank Jen, much appreciated. It looks like they were both withholding salaries.

What are you on about durhamjen?
Did I say it was OK?
No, I did not. I said:
Oh good, glad the employees get what they are owed and the rest goes to the right place to benefit all!

Convoluting other people's posts again.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/10/quit-hospital-boss-nhs-chair-kings-college-hospital-london

I hope more follow him. Then maybe the government will get the message.

theconversation.com/forget-mark-zuckerbergs-charity-we-need-corporate-tax-reform-88804

I do hope this happens.
I will praise this government if it does.
Anyone on facebook should read this.

We need to find out WHY the NHS pays so much more for everyday drugs than other countries do, why so much money is wasted and I thought I heard it reported that Kerslake has quit because a team is being sent in to find out just that.

Do we pay more for our drugs than other countries?

Kerslake's article says nothing about that (though the insinuation in your post, Jalima would seem to be "well, he wouldn't, would he")

Do you think you could give us a source (with a link?) for the price of drugs statement?

Yes, we do
I am surprised you missed the major news item about it on the BBC the other week MaizieD

Here's one example:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42063274

Many drug companies over-charge the NHS - why? Their products are sold much more cheaply in other countries - even just across the Channel.

And of course, The Guardian would never be biased, would it!

Nor would the Express of course, however, this is interesting

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/889360/NHS-drug-shortage-medicine-supplies-dry-up-cancer-breast-cancer-epilepsy

There is a problem at the moment with certain drugs being difficult to obtain, perhaps you have not experienced this yourself.

It wasn't the Guardian, it was Kerslake himself writing in the Guardian.

And I don't watch TV.

Thanks

Did you miss the fact that the BBC article mentioned the drug company Concordia?
That's the sort of agreement that Davis says he wants, Canada plus, plus, plus.

From reading the BBC news report I would surmise that the cheap drugs that people are buying are copies which may or may not be free from adulteration, not the originals from Concordia.

Which doesn't in the slightest excuse such blatant profiteering.

If produced by a reputable drugs firm then a drug should become cheaper when it comes off licence. Obviously the NHS would need to be sure that these drugs are produced in accordance with the correct guidelines - which I assume that the French health service does when it purchases them.

The French health service also has problems with the prices of drugs. They have a principle called a 'generic' which I think means the basic form of the drug which is cheaper than some produced by expensive drugs firms.
There's a problem here with over-prescribing - many drugs are wasted.
And some are unobtainable, I'm not sure why, but sometimes I have to go to various pharmacies to find one that I have.
Then the pharmacies prefer you to get the expensive version because they get a cut of the price. Many pharmacies are closing down for financial reasons.

The generic versions of the drug can be produced by other firms when the drug comes off licence. However, there should still be strict controls over the exact content and production method.

You'd think that certain drugs would be more easily obtainable when they come off licence but that doesn't always seem to be the case unfortunately.

www.theweek.co.uk/grenfell-tower/90337/grenfell-tower-80-of-families-homeless-as-inquiry-begins

A distinct lack of competence here.
What happened to them all being rehoused within three weeks?

Another fellow councillor said that she admitted in a council meeting that some of the Grenfell residents won’t be housed until next June, but today on the bbc she was saying that the council will have purchased 300 properties by Christmas, there are 300 people to house.

The numbers simply don’t add up - someone is lying.

Did you see the vicar nearly in tears? I really felt sorry for him.

3 months ago, they were saying that 80% of Grenfell residents were still in temporary accommodation.
To quote May, "Nothing has changed!"

Finding so many homes in London ( nearby) was always going to be difficult for any Council, plenty has been done for the residents and still continues to be done.....give it a rest!

But the houses have been found! According to the council leader. It s just that no be seems to be living in them

Lemon, on 13th September it was said that 80% of Grenfell survivors were in temporary accommodation.
Yesterday it was said that 80% of Grenfell survivors are still in temporary accommodation.

Can you explain how that is doing plenty for the residents?
If you can't, if you can't give one thing that has been done for those 80%, don't say anything!

Theresa May said that they would all be rehoused within three weeks after the fire.
Yesterday the council said they would all be in permanent homes by Christmas.
Someone isn't telling the truth, so no, I won't give it a rest.

Glad to see you care about those 80%.