What can you expect from our campaigns in 2017?

Hi Lauren – My comment was based partly on what I pick up from Conversations where there is still a stream of reports about technical support scams and various forms of telephone call-block scam, and from our own personal experience where previously there were very few nuisance calls and yet now there are two or three a week which either want computer access or personal details. Cold-calling for other purposes [compo claims, marketing, sales, surveys] seem to have dried up. So now we are getting more cold calls and every one of them is objectionable. My guess is that they are are now all of foreign origin.

Mine are still mixed, even had some very proper English accents.

In the last few weeks, I’ve had computer virus, recent accident, mobile phone contract up for renewal, PPI, Telephone Protection Service.

There is still a long way to go before any real success can be claimed methinks.

When I was at work I could divert a call to a different extension. I wish I could do that with the BT switchboard and send all my nuisance calls to No. 10. I have a feeling something would happen if we could do that.

BT do have a diversion service John, but you have a point your landline phone is connected to a giant electronic switchboard just a much bigger version of a large business system , in theory it could be done , but there would be massive loss of income .

I know it is possible to have all calls diverted to a specific number, but what I am looking for is a facility whereby you can transfer a call while you are on the line. So when Mr Computer Fraudster is on the line you say, “Just hold on a minute while I transfer you to the other line where I have the computer”, but you press 7 or whatever [which silences the call], and tap in the new number, press 7 again, and send the call to a completely different place. The person paying for the call carries on paying for it until is eventually terminated. I realise there is a possibility that this facility is technically feasible but the government couldn’t possibly admit it otherwise it would expose the oft-repeated argument that there is no way of cutting out nuisance calls as baseless. The best advice remains to terminate them immediately.

Yes John easy peasy in the US , here you need a private company to do the technical work and that is only if you already have a business with facilities that can transfer calls .

John, you have just described something I suggested a while back.

When you get a nuisance caller, I think you should be able to dial a number that then gets connected to a nuisance call/fraud centre where the calls are monitored, recorded and traced. People using this facility would likely know to keep the caller on the line as long as possible.

And thats the problem Alfa the “drop out time ” IE- when the caller hangs up is short because of complaints in the past of people holding up lines so your last sentence applies.

I agree Alfa – I like that idea even more. It would have to happen silently and almost instantaneously so the unwanted caller could not detect the transfer and then, as you say, the recipient would have to trap them on the line until the origin of the call could be traced.

I still think we have to get to the root of the problem and stop the incoming calls in the first place rather than devising ways of ‘managing’ them. A large number of people would still get disturbed, interrupted, or taken advantage of as they might not know how to divert the calls.

I’ve also suggested something like in the past. You enter a code either after or during a call to flag the call as nuisance or a scam. Then make it the problem of you phone supplier to deal with.

Norfolk Trading Standards have just released a warning on two new cold-calling scams purporting to come from BT. In the first the caller states that telephone bills have not been paid, or the last direct debit has failed, and they then request immediate payment by credit or debit card. In the second. the caller states that an account is in credit which they are wishing to refund and they then request debit card details in order to process the refund.

Don’t get me started on my experiences with Royal Fail. 1st class letter took 9 days to arrive earlier this month, similarly a Royal Fail 48 package took 15 days another Royal Fail 48 package took 5 days.

Whilst I agree with the disgust at the high interest rates and other practices it would seem to me to be better to educate people not to use them.

This may involve making more of the credit unions and similar so that people realise the alternatives available.

Perhaps the bank of mum and dad is cheaper but inclined to be fussy on how money is spent. There may be a lesson there also.

If there is a campaign for Which? to be involved in it would where people with impaired capabilities end up with significant debts. This includes manic depressives and the senile for instance. I realise Martin Lewis is already involved but Which? has the membership to make the issue better understood and for a result to be achieved.

I also get annoyed when you get more froth than coffee from some establishments. Asking for flat white or no foam usually does the trick though.

It’s not the brewers that are cheating you but the bar staff – who are almost always working for a separate company. I have not found a pub that refuses to top up a short measure in a brim-measure glass, though I don’t always have the patience to wait for this to be done.

I know a couple of micropubs that sell real ale in ‘line glasses’ that provide a full measure of liquid plus the head.

Many pubs are brewery owned – landlords paying heavily for the drink or, if they choose to opt out of brewery ownership, paying heavily in rent. So they may well be directly or indirectly controlling the way the drinks are served. However, I’d need that proven as a generality; I rarely visit a pub and am not keen on beer; I drink cider if I want a long drink and my experience has been it necessary to take a big sip from the glass before I leave the bar as they have been filled right to the brim.

I would have thought this might be one job – checking measures – that Trading Standards would have been delighted to retain. They – weights and measures – are the people who prosecute for short measure, just as they are with petrol (haven’t seen them at my fuel stops though). I wonder if they are still active?

More pubs are owned by pub companies than breweries these days and a considerable amount of effort is being made to end ties to both. Irrespective of ownership and ties, it is the individual who gives short measure who is committing the offence. It is generally accepted in the industry that brim measure glasses should contain a minimum of 95% of liquid and that staff should respond positively if asked to top up a glass. Cider does not have much of a head so hopefully no-one is given short measure. I far prefer line-glasses so that no liquid is spilt down the side of a beer glass.

I suppose you could take the bathroom scales to the filling station next time you fill up the petrol can for the lawnmower. I expect that modern pump mechanisms are more reliable than in the past and sealed to discourage interference, rather like a gas or electricity meter. There is no longer an instruction to check that a sight glass is full before and after delivery, so presumably the pump stops before the storage tank is empty.

Here is a newspaper article where someone from the Trading Standards Institute admits to not being able to cope with the problem of short measure: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-171856/250m-siphoned-short-measure-scams.html

That Daily Mail article must be quite old now. It is some time since Sir John Bourn was head of the National Audit Office but I don’t suppose the weights & measures inspection regime has improved at all.

It is possible that, for road fuel dispense, the equipment manufacturers [mainly Gilbarco] have developed very reliable delivery systems, have a guaranteed testing and servicing routine, have a quality management system, and effectively perform the validation function on behalf of Trading Standards. I have certainly seen their technicians at the pumps on several occasions. The fuel companies also have their own inspectors to check up on their concessionaires and they also might be carrying out checks to ensure that Gilbarco are doing their job properly. A high percentage of private motor fuel must now be sold by supermarkets; whether that is a good thing or not is hard to say.

Indeed it is old and the NAO report referred to dates from 2003: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2003/03/0203495es.pdf I searched for an article that mentioned short measure in dispense of beer and petrol and was interested by the admission that Trading Standards was not coping.

It would be good to have a Conversation led by Trading Standards. How about it, Which?

Even better if Trading Standards answered questions that arose.

They’d probably refer you to Citizens Advice….. 🙁
It is surely time consumers were treated properly. We need an active and responsive Trading Standards that deals with national issues at national level, and does not palm it off to local, and seemingly ineffective, branches, and a dedicated Minister whose principal responsibility is to look after consumer issues. Maybe Brexit is a good opportunity to instigate this change?

David for a start BT CANT “leech off VM it is banned by legislation from doing so , all VM cables/ducting are their own and BT CANT obtain any use of them , so where is this “leeching ” ? Its precisely the other way around in the case of many telecommunication companies they definitely leech off BT underground networks . The British Public are the real owners of the national network as it was put in under the GPO Telephone Act . To carry this on , where is VM in the hills of Wales Scotland , in outlying farms/ cottages ? no they scooped up like the other ISP,s the most profitable areas of Britain leaving BT with the network stretching into the countryside . When the government asked -who will install FTTC it waited for Sky/ Vodaphone / you name it to run forward and say -we will- they waited in vain because ALL they were interested in was provision of services to the most profitable areas only BT took up the challenge the money provided wasn’t enough to cover the whole of Britain even so BT has managed to save HMG £400,000 which they gave back due to wise use of the funds provided , since when has the other providers given anything back to the public unless it was a big court case . So contact Branson and ask him if he will provide fibre to that wee cottage/farm 10 miles up a glen in Scotland and don’t spend too long waiting for a reply.

Very good point Murray I was shocked to find an ex supervisor of an Oxfam shop which closed down and was working in another (different ) charity shop told me it closed because it did not make enough profit . The lady told me -quote- Oxfam donate 10p for every pound they receive, to charity .

Investigating charities might be a little difficult for Which? currently given it is owned by the charity Consumers’ Association where there are some changes needed.

However as part of its re-birth it may become an exemplar and actually show how it can be done. There is a fundamental flaw in many many British charities in that the holding of Trustees and Executives to account can be very difficult. Often this is due to the Articles they operate under which in some case provide only for Trustees to be shareholders and no one else has any legal input.

Where a charity is also a limited company, as many are, the nature of the Companies Act works very much against shareholders in raising problems or defeating Trustee provided Resolutions. Being asked to pay for the costs and to find 5% of all members to support a Resolution, or to wish to comment on a Trustee driven resolution, is enough to put most people off.

Which? could campaign so that charities with shareholders adopt the regulations for Plc’s or some other form where discussion and voting can take place more easily.

There are consumer bodies in Holland and in France where the members have better forms of governance.

Even the best run Trustee Board can have problems when they are not involving enough people who will provide the Trustees of the future.

On some charity Councils unfortunately there seems to be a habit of inviting people on who are known already to the Trustees. This is particularly so if the charity is high profile.

Another source of talented Trustees is the exit strategy for the Civil Service and some businesses where candidates are listed with agencies who deal with charities who need Trustees.

Unfortunately Civil Servants, quango members and retiring businesspeople may all share a certain view on secrecy and involving the masses. And they tend to have polished CV’s.

Don’t get me wrong they can be good for a charity but it is a matter of checks and balances and not getting a predominant and self-reinforcing culture.

The Royal Horticultural Society has some impressive rules including a maximum ever term in office of ten years. It also curiously limits Life Membership to 100 years which might seem a swizz but then you cannot join until you are 18…..

Which? could afford to run training sessions for potential Trustees for all charities, there are around 160,000 of them, and some are badly run, many are moribund, and some few are run by crooks.

One run badly was one for hospices were it was paying around 90%+ to the company running its campaigns. It is fair to say that within the charity industry sometimes the Charity Commission is lax but this may be changing with new powers being granted to name rogue Directors/Trustees and Charities,

I have been wondering recently whether an investigation into charities could be done by Which? or whether it would be outside its consumer terms of reference . . . but if not Which?, who else? There does not seem to be any mechanism for calling into question the performance of charities and to even raise the problem is deemed bad form.

My own concerns derive from dealing with the effects of a close relative who died suddenly and unexpectedly a couple of years ago and I was her executor. There was an enormous amount of very good quality clothing, household goods, books, CD’s and diverse personal items. I placed them with two big local charities who collected the goods by the van load. I was obviously concerned that the charities made as much money out of the sales of the items as possible but my investigations revealed an almost contemptuous attitude at every level to such an objective and I am still awaiting satisfactory replies to my enquiries. It seems they are not used to having to account for their efforts in respect of donations. I shall save the details for any further Conversation that might come up on this topic but I can certainly confirm that it really will be worth lifting the lid on what is going on at ground level as well as in the managements of charities, let alone the conduct of the trustees.

Like you John it was not with any “happiness ” that I posted my above post but with sadness and if this does develop into a Convo , as my wife at one time worked in an upmarket area ,well know charity shop, I could quote even more “shocking ” revelations but they might not be legal to post.

So long as they are truthful or fair comment, Duncan, they will be legal to post. The moderators would soon take them down if they infringed the law so save them all for a future Conversation.

there is a House of Lords Committee currently running on Charities. Looking at who have been called to give evidence so far and the composition of the Committee it will be interesting to see if anything concrete arises.

There is also a committee on the standards for charity Accounts which stopped taking contributions a few months back as it prepares its report. A general comment on these Accounts driven committees is that – for Accountants/auditors the driving force is to restrict the workload/maximise profit, and the potential legal liabilities in case shareholders got restive. I was taught this when training as an auditor in the last century.

There is a current oddity as this last year saw a change in a category of how much is spent on Governance. The previous year I could tell you that CA spent £470,000 on Governance and now this does not appear at all. Who asked for a change and why it was agreed is a mystery. The obvious answer I believe is that members have to agree to bits of information disappearing and not leave it to the Accountants of the charity and their auditors.

There are major problems currently with what charities report. If you look at the National Trusts and the RHS they report all interests potential and actual of the Trustees , but there are noteworthy charities that do not.

I cannot comprehend why the Charity Commission allows these two levels of disclosure. They may say they do not as the long-standing guidance is all Trustee benefits are revealed . And of course that does not cover conflicts of influence rather just monetary benefit.

Do not get me wrong I think there are a vast number of very very good and worthwhile charities. There does seem to be a lack of education on what Trustees are responsible for which does create some problems.

People who are Trustees should be appreciated for what they do and they should be assisted perhaps by some useful assistance by early training offered for a token price by the wealthy charities. Lloyds of London, Motability, Welcome Foundation come to mind as extremely wealthy but worthwhile.
Many schools and colleges are also charities and could provide teaching venues.

There are so many facets to the doings of charities that I am thinking the scope would be too wide for Which? to investigate without detracting from higher-priority concerns. It might make a useful topic for a Conversation, however, to see which aspects bother people the most.

JudithD1 , while i admire the spirit of your post , after the “discussions ” that have already taken place on this subject and Which having to censor may posts due to bad language/ slandering each other and much more Which would need to be masochistic to invite more trouble on its head , the film -Hell on Earth springs to mind.

Just thought of another, but it won’t let me edit the original post 🙁

5) Make Ofgem alter the savings quoted rules when switching. Currently companies are allowed to hide price hikes by assuming you’ll be switched to a variable tariff. The savings need to be split into upto the end of your current tariff then to the end of the year and then a total. I got a bill saying I could save £176 by switching yet the standing charges were both higher and the unit prices were again both higher than what I was already paying.

6) and after last night a campaign to ban individuals from having or being able to buy fireworks.

Wales has that already and Scotland too, ISTR.

Very controversial start to 2017 Beryl ! I thought I was the one that was “accused ” of doing the same , but I congratulate you on doing so , very serious business on a very personal level to many people because of the value they place on a dead body as that “dead body ” was a loved one who was part of their life for many years . This brings up vast international issues as well of a worldwide scale , there are already tissues taken from aborted “babies ” I bracket that because that in itself is a massive feminist issue in itself ( you can see where all this is going Beryl ) . If you want the truth since its inception by “interested parties ” iSIS has consistently taken organs from those civilians it tortured to death and sold them on the “market place” for vast sums of money , a middle -east country has been accused by human rights organisations of doing the same to those it kills and returning the bodies to the relatives sans vital organs I could never post the country concerned . Organ trafficking is an multi-$ Million business , funny they are always able to sell those organs –no problem ? I dont think Which would want to “delve” into some of the areas mentioned as I am sure foreign governments would be on their backs .This issue could be as controversial as Brexit and much more emotional AND political in many directions , how far do you go to “open a can of worms ” ?

Duncan, I am not particularly very fond of worms whether canned or otherwise, but there are issues which need addressing, such as if you live in Wales and are unfortunate enough to die in England, the English law takes precedence over the .Welsh. I am assuming the same applies to Scotland?

Thank you Beryl. Bring it on. Which? Conversation is a site where we can explore public reaction to different concepts and challenge prevailing orthodoxies. So long as people stick to the truth and behave themselves there is nothing to fear from freedom to debate things like this.

Duncan – Once again you are referring to things you think cannot be revealed. Why not? If human rights organisations are accusing a country of removing organs from people it has killed then it must already be in the public domain. These organisations can be named as well as the state they are condemning. It might surprise you to discover how much other contributors already know. In any case, we could confine the discussion to what the UK government should do in respect of England and how the opt-out would work – we are already pioneering procedures in embryology that were considered too controversial just a few years ago.

Beryl for Scotland’s position on organ donation check out : http://www.parliament.scot/S4_MembersBills/Organ_Donation_Consultation_Document.pdf Scotland does have the power to differ from Westminster policy (Devolved Powers Act )

Before any legislation takes place re donating your organs, people should have been given the opportunity and/or be advised to read the following:

nhsbt.nhs.uk – The potential impact of an opt out system for organ donation in the UK. An independent report from the Organ Donation Taskforce.

Could this report have any bearing as to why England is still dragging its feet on this issue?

Exactly.

My body is the one thing that belongs to me that I can take with me when I die. It should remain my choice what I wish done with it, or any of its parts. Not any one else’s decision.

While I agree with your opinion malcolm have a look at : https://www.contactlaw.co.uk/what-rights-exist-over-a-dead-body.html

It would still remain so under the legislation adopted by Wales and Scotland. All you would need to do would be to opt out. Mind you, the form could be worded interestingly …

“I hereby wish to deprive anyone else – child or adult – who is seriously ill and whose only hope would be an organ transplant, of any and all my organs, since although I will have no use whatsoever for them once I’m dead, I want to be like that. The seriously ill and dying can go somewhere else.”

The only contentious issue I can see could be the unseemly haste to unplug you, once you were deemed dead. The other concern some have voiced is the ‘thin end..’ argument. Duncan’s already hinted at the illegal trade in humans organs already (ready yourself for a shock, Duncan 🙂 existing in India, South Africa, Turkey and Mexico (established prosecutions) and suspected in many other areas, such as Israel, the UK (!) and France while currently, it is estimated that about 10% of all transplants occur illegally, with the Internet acting as a facilitator. One source estimates that at least 4000 prisoners were executed in 2006 to supply approximately 8000 kidneys and 3000 livers for foreign buyers.The nastiest case was the case of the member of the Mexican Knights Templar Cartel, who was arrested for kidnapping and murdering minors. Children were found wrapped in blankets and stuffed in a refrigerated container inside a van. Various accounts have stated the arrested man is part of a network that kidnaps and kills minors, after which their organs are removed.

So yes; this could be an interesting debate. And it might even be appropriate for Which? since it involves consumers and trade.

Ian-“braver ” than me in mentioning one particular country and one organisation as I know just how powerful they are and just how much they can “retaliate ” . If I appear “soft” on this its because of actual actions taken against me due to speaking up .

Another question, should the organs of Welsh and Scottish people who havent opted out of the system be given to people in England? Did anyone consider this possibility and would this affect their decision to opt out if they had been sufficiently informed of this?

We hear much about what goes on in other countries, but our NHS is wholly dependent on staff from all quarters of the globe. Presumably the hypocratic oath is universal in the medical profession and applies to all countries.

In light of your above comment Malcolm, if you lived in Wales or Scotland you would be required to officially register to opt out of their system. Failure to do so would enable the medics to help themselves to whatever organ they could utilise and your relatives would have no say in the matter.

“a law that is both equal and fair to all”. It seems to me to be a fundamental human right to do what you wish with your own body. Therefore I should have to make a positive decision to donate my body to others, not have to go around with “no organ donation here” tattooed on my forehead, in case I should have the misfortune to meet my demise in the wrong country.

Some time ago I voluntarily allowed any useful organs to be taken from my body after death and so far as I am aware this is registered in my computerised medical records for any doctor or hospital to see. I don’t need to carry a card or take any further action although I do always carry my National Headache Service general practice registration document which gives my name, address, identification number, and practice details.

I see having to opt out as a bad thing.

Opting out would turn considered donation into a cut-throat business as bodies were up for grabs to see what could be made out of them.

I would think bodies that have lived a full lifetime are unlikely to have too many useable spare parts but if they were made available………..

Younger people are more likely to not bother opting out as they see a long life ahead of them. For the unexpected death of a young person who has not opted out, the added stress on loved ones would be horrendous.

Organ donation needs to be respectful to the donor and their loved ones. Maybe there needs to be more encouragement to register for donation, but the more bodes that were made available, the more disrespectful the process would become.

Good points, Alfa, particularly the first one. Certainly in Wales relatives are still consulted prior to donations and I suspect (but I don’t know for sure) that vehement objections would be respected.

But this is all to do with living as part of a society, I think. There are many things to which we might object in society; many childless people bitterly resent the large chunk of taxation that goes into education, for instance, while many, it would seem, would like to pick and choose what their taxes should pay for. But when we live in a society and are dependent on that society for Health services, a well educated populace, security and Protection from crime then being ‘opted in’ to organ donation is, I suspect, only an extension of the existing principles that govern societal interactions.

It also makes sense, I think, but it’s bound to be a very contentious issue.

I signed-up to have any bit of my body used as spares in my early 20s after meeting a friend of a friend who was desperately waiting for a transplant.

I hope we don’t see the equivalent of equity release. 🙁

If people choose to donate organs then they are making a conscious decision, not having one made for them by others. Whilst we might all be part of society we also have the freedom to make our own choices – fortunately. I would not like to see that change.

A thought is how we deal with an ever-increasing world population. Wars and disease, famine reduce its increase, but do not stop it. Just when will our world reach saturation and what will then happen?

If I pass away in a hospital it is as likely to be a private one as a state one. I cannot see how one’s humanitarian decision on the destination of one’s organs should be affected by the corporate status of the hospital. National Hiccup Service hospitals are still state-run institutions even if they have elements of private provision, voluntary service, and benefaction associated with them. I agree with Alfa that it would be better if voluntary organ donation registration could be encouraged to obviate the need for a default position and opting out being necessary. It is important that any decision is revocable. I believe any proper debate on this should start with some numbers on how many transplants of each organ are needed each year and the extent to which the voluntary registration process meets demand.

Malcolm: hopefully mankind will move to the stars – well, Mars, anyway. Nice there, this time of year, I believe.

I thought research suggested exactly the opposite, Beryl? Certainly the research I’ve looked at has concluded that a majority indicate they want to donate organs, yet only a comparatively small minority actually sign up to do so. Making it the default option might ensure far more donors. Unless I’ve misunderstood, in which case, apologies 🙂

I am full of admiration for you Beryl in your comment- “I wouldn’t hesitate to donate to a close relative and for that alone you deserve a “thumbs up ” . Your right Beryl young people don’t like facing up to death , something none of us here in a corporal body can overcome . As I believe in reincarnation , you do come back–several times , at least, who is perfect in one life ? not me anyway , you are here to learn, living once as the bible makes out just puts fear in you , you get more than one chance , its a school , you learn -you die , you are resurrected in another body to learn more or help others . I remember about 2000 years ago I was a captain leading a band of men southwards after a battle but I had been gravely wounded and fell to the ground and as I looked up at my loyal men I felt a great sadness that I would not see them again , I did not know then that those you love , you will see again.

You are correct Ian, the majority do indicate they want to donate organs but the reality is rather different when faced with carrying out the deed. Procrastination can often defer peoples good intentions, for one reason or another appertaining to themselves. England now needs to join forces with the rest of the U.K. in order to make the system more workable as long as the option to opt out remains of course.

Why should someone else dictate what should be done with your body unless you make the effort to indicate otherwise? Procrastination works both ways.

Procrastination can mean the difference between life or death for some unfortunate people whose days are numbered without an organ transplant.

Malcolm: isn’t that part of living in a society? It’s not really “someone else” dictating about what should be done with your remains, rather an agreement between the members of that society for the good of that society?

No it is not. We each have the freedom to choose, not to be told. I haven’t said what my choice is, but as individuals choice, freedom, is vital. I (we all) contribute to “society”, but we must retain personal freedom. If I want to donate organs i can choose to quite freely. if I do not want to donate, no one else should decide that I am wrong.

If we were as concerned about preserving human life as some profess, we could start by looking to the starving millions around the world, and speaking out to prevent any more ghastly slaughters such as occur(red) in Syria, Iraq, Vietnam, …………

And on that last aspect I completely agree. But not with your second sentence…”We each have the freedom to choose, not to be told“. In fact, as so many now know, part of living in a democracy such as ours is that huge numbers have to abide by the will of a minority. Freedom is an admirable ambition, but rarely – if ever – achieved in the modern world. Many times in a society we have to compromise on what we want to do, simply because of the needs of society as a whole. There are many pieces of legislation with which I disagree, some which I believe are absurd and some which work to protect me and my freedom, such as it is. But I attempt to conform because of the ultimate benefits to society.

The legislation in Wales didn’t affect us, as we’re both signed up, anyway, but it might well affect a child awaiting a vital transplant, or a woman, desperate for a baby. Yes – we could, indeed should be making a lot of noise about the indiscriminate abuse of human life that takes place throughout the world; of course we ought. But just as I accept everyone has a right to life I accept that organ donation is in the ultimate interest of society.

Its when you conform to that which is wrong in this world just to fit in or be liked or loved , I would rather be hated and be true to myself and my unbending belief in fighting for freedom and peace and true love. Think not that I come to bring peace on this Earth ? no I come to set brother against brother, so that the fight is a righteous one . But man should fight for the common good , if that good rests with the minority so be it ,if not then the majority rules , by their ACTIONS shall they be known . Its easy to see and walk the straight path of abeyance where your reward is of this earth but rather build your “riches ” up for the non material world and your reward shall be greater than any on this earth.

Each to his own, Ian. I wouldn’t dream of imposing my view on others – suggest, yes, maybe with a little fervour, but impose, no. And I do not want to have someone else’s view imposed on me. If I choose to be an alcoholic, obese, smoke, not wear a seat belt I will (I am not and I don’t 🙂 because I can decide what is in my best interests, and of those I love). I also contribute to “society” and help others in ways that I choose. Choice – that is what we can exercise in most situations. But we must also be prepared to take the consequences of our actions.

Malcolm I tried to give you 2 “thumbs up ” but failed I agree in body and soul with every word you posted . In your words you show the true meaning of life itself.

The interesting ethical question is whether those who are against a default presumption in favour of organ donation, or who have deliberately opted out and withdrawn consent, should be entitled to benefit in the same way as others from the system in the event that they require a transplant in order to survive. This could be critical if there were two equal claims for a specific organ but only one was available. This is where the concept of ‘society’ rather than the interests of the individual is truly put to the test.

Duncan – I am sorry your attempt to donate an additional thumb to Malcolm was unsuccessful but I have given him one of mine since I can probably manage without it now. I don’t necessarily agree with everything Malcolm says on this topic but I respect his right to say it and he argues his points very cogently.

The last sentence John – I have the answer to that as dictated to me quite bluntly(NHS) in the event of saving a life the younger more productive person would get first choice , hard but true (if we are talking about the general public John ) Not royalty/Lords/Ladies/Gentry/ MP,s /etc-etc . I actually understand that the older person has lived his life ,the young one is only just starting out.

My closest family members work in the medical profession and I believe that, like me, are happy for parts to be used to help others, but I do agree that it should be a personal decision. I am not proud of the fact that I have never donated blood but it’s simply because I have an irrational phobia involving the stuff.

Perhaps the answer is to write to everyone and ask them to express their wish about organ donation, etc and say that they can change their mind at any time.