Cyclizine

Too expensive to rent the Myrus Centre pitch now I think.

Ship Inn down at the harbour. If you're into Belgian beer, Marine Hotel is a few doors down and also does food.

I knew the Seafield was up for sale, but I didn't realise it was shut, that's a shame, it was a good pub. The social club was on its last legs last time I was in and I'm not surprised it finally shut last year. I think Rothes do their sit-down hospitality in the Station Hotel. It does have a public bar, but it would feel a bit fancy for a pre-match pint, last time I was in was an anniversary, pre-Covid. I'm not sure what the other drinking options would be, short of Elgin, Aberlour or Craigellachie. I realise this hasn't really been a helpful reply.

Why is an NHS worker doing other work in their own time a problem? Are you suggesting that they can only do more hours for the NHS? That will do wonders for recruitment and retention. Bank pay rates are atrocious and completely out of keeping with market rates. What NHS employees do in their own time is none of the NHS's business, so long as it doesn't impact their NHS work. I have no obligation to do any more work than is specified in my contract and job plan. If they want me to do more work, then they can pay me for it. I don't currently do private work, but I do also work for a university one day a week (and I am paid for it). I have colleagues who do event and sports cover or do expedition medicine. Should all this be banned as well? Where do you draw the line?

You don't just walk off the street. Nurses do a nursing degree, doctors go to medical school, then have a mandatory year of pre-registration in an approved setting. After that, they have full registration and coukd work anywhere that will employ them, most will complete a second year minimum. It's not indentured servitude. Doctors who are "training" in a specialty are not just supernumerary. They're providing a huge amount service to the NHS as well, far beyond what any notional "training" costs would be. Arguably, they should try to claw back money from the NHS for all the unpaid extra hours they work. I've probably paid several thousand, if not more, for all my exams, training courses, meetings etc (plus all the needed travel and accommodation), all mandatory, but the NHS doesn't cover them, I don't "owe" them the money back, since they never paid it in the first place. I have more than fulfilled my "duty" to the NHS, even if that were a thing. I meet my contractual obligations, I work full time, what I do in my free time has nothing to do with the NHS. Also, anaesthetists are doctors.

Notwithstanding the fact I've worked for the NHS for over sixteen years, I'd be intrigued how much "training" you think the NHS gives its staff in reality and how you think it's delivered. Plus I am working full time. I've not left the NHS to work elsewhere, even if that were relevant.

I work for the NHS, 40 hours per week with 1:6 on-call. Why am I not allowed to do some private work (or any other work) in my own time? Do I have an obligation to provide more hours to the NHS than the full-time hours I already provide? Not that I do any private work, but why should an employer be allowed to specify what you do in your own time so long as it isn't interfering with your employment?

Fraserburgh v Arbroath would've been my pick, although selfishly I'm pleased it's not on the Monday night. I presume distance and costs come into the BBC's thinking at this stage of the competition.

The SPFL is better and more competitive having smaller divisions playing home and away twice than having 18 team divisions playing home and away once.

League clamped down a few years ago. Punishment is very specific in the league regulations:

I do wonder if it's more than one player

They do, installed over the summer

With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps Montrose Roselea would have gone for the Midlands League, but as you say it wasn't on the cards at the time, but a Lothians heavy East Regional division was. To be honest, although travel would be less for them in the Midlands, aside from Nairn, Dufftown and Maud, the North Premiership is really just an Aberdeen and District league and the AWPR has significantly cut journey times. Fewer league fixtures in the North as well. I suspect travel isn't really their main concern.

One of the better supported teams. Probably 250-300 or so for a run-of-the-mill league game. There was a decent turn out for the Stranraer game, well over 400 I'd say. I'd like to think there'd be an even better crowd for Arbroath visiting, plus hopefully a few more away fans.

Not much in Pitmedden. There's a bar at the ground, but there'll probably be hospitality on. If you're coming on a supporters bus, you're probably better booking in somewhere else (maybe Ellon) and then heading to the ground.

It's an accessible article at an appropriate level. I'm sure others are available. Plenty of peer-reviewed sources available too, but not aimed at the general public.

As I said, there are screening programmes that have been shown to be of benefit and others that have not. Random screening as advertised by many private clinics is not evidence based and not shown to improve outcomes. If there are specific concerns, then focused investigations can be done, rather than a blunderbuss approach. Despite popular opinion, there are very few medical tests that give definitive answers one way or the other, they merely indicate the likelihood or not of having a condition, which itself is influenced by the prevalence of that condition. Even some of the efficacy of recognised programmes can be in question. There are some cancer screening programmes that do indeed, reduce deaths from that cancer. However, they do not reduce overall deaths in those patients, the implication being that there are conditions that you may have but are unlikely to cause you harm, but the treatments for these conditions may be harmful in themselves. I agree it is difficult to conceptualise. Screening programmes are designed on populations levels, you can't really boil things down to individuals. Although we can say a treatment improves outcomes by, x% overall you can't say that any particular patient will have benefit (the may in fact not have any benefit or even harm). Prostate cancer is the classic example, it's almost inevitable that as men age they will get areas of abnormality in their prostates. However, most men will not run into any problems from this and will die of something else unrelated. However, some men will develop aggressive disease. We have no way of telling, which is why we don't routinely screen all men for prostate cancer - the changes are so common and the tests so poorly able to differentiate, that we would subject many, many more men to invasive and potentially life-changing interventions, who may never have gone on to develop any significant disease. We do offer screening tests to men, but only after a proper discussion about risks and benefits so that an informed decision can be taken. Note that this is asymptomatic screening - it's a different situation when patients have symptoms as this changes the probabilities. There are many public health and experts who are far more knowledgeable than me about evidence based screening, the NHS is generally pretty decent at screening (there are loads of programmes).

Notwithstanding the fact that it's not all about the ground when it comes to licences, the Dammies would need a hell of a lot of work. Floodlights, new boundary wall, proper cover, new changing rooms at a minimum. Not insurmountable, but not easy either. I can't imagine we'll see any other NCL teams going for licencing any time soon.

You got me there.

Yes. It is counterintuitive, but the Wikipedia article I linked explains this well.

Absolutely no evidence for this and actually evidence that random blanket screening can lead to harm. If you do twenty tests, one will be abnormal purely by chance. A "simple" set of bloods has many times that number. An incidental finding that may never have caused you any problems all of a sudden can lead to invasive and unnecessary tests and procedures with their own complications. We already have validated screening programmes (bowel cancer, cervical cancer, diabetes eye screening etc), because there's evidence that they're beneficial. I'm not saying that we should not promote evidence based public health interventions, but that although it seems to make logical sense that "catching things early" is better, that's not demonstrated by the evidence for many conditions and may in fact be harmful.

The US push the "annual physical" as it's a money spinner. There's no evidence that routine "health checks" and random screening improve outcomes, outwith a few specific conditions for which we have validated screening programmes. If you've got specific concerns, as you mention, then reasonable to go and see your GP, but these whole-body scans, blood tests, etc you see advertised are a waste of money and more likely to cause you unnecessary worry than anything else. Wikipedia has a decent enough article on what makes a good screening programme and why we don't do blanket screening: risk of doing more harm than good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_(medicine)

Still a shambles. Couple of flights landing at the same time and the queue for the passport gates was out of the barrier room, up the stairs and round the corridor to the gate. 90 mins to get through, no toilets or seats. They were picking out those with kids to go through the manned gates. Then the bags still not arrived on the carousels.

It's actually getting renovated at the moment, the trust that looks after it got decent whack of cash to do it up. Not sure how things will pan out in the long term, in the current economic climate, mind.

Aye, think they'll be safe enough this season as Tayport and Lochee Utd seem a bit off the pace in the Midlands League. Even were Golspie (or Fort, I suppose) to win the NCL, I'd still probably expect the Jags to win over two legs. Could be more interesting next few seasons as more licences appear in the Highland footprint.