Not to discuss his work for this country other than some snide comments that he may just work for one and

Not to discuss his work for this country other than some snide comments that he may just work for one and a half days a week is outrageous.For all the thanks he is getting Charles could have chosen to be a colourless figure, involved in country pursuits, and the patron of a few charities He could shake a lot of hands and remain silent That would suit our government and the corporate lobby. He does not simply become patron of a charity, he starts one himself. Practices have in the past tried to implement that compromise as best they could, but the government’s fixation on 24-48 hour access for all, irrespective of the urgency of their condition, has skewed the balance.The aim of family doctors is still to see any patient who needs to be seen the same day. But we recognise, as patients do, that not every request for an appointment is urgent The GP contract will encourage more doctors to become GPs Until then we will struggle on. But, in the meantime, politically-driven targets do not help us to run our practices in the best way to serve our patients.Dr HAMISH MELDRUM Chairman, General Practitioners Committee British Medical Association London W1 Charles has chosen the path of caring Sir: Johann Hari’s profile of Charles Windsor should have been called “The Saturday Caricature”.

The BMA’s GPs committee has consistently said that until we have more GPs, guaranteed instant access comes at a cost: in many practices this equates to being unable to offer patients forward appointment booking.Until you have sorted out the underlying workforce problems, there is always going to have to be a compromise between trying to offer a same or next day appointment, and allowing patients to book routine appointments further in advance. The new national GP contract introduced in April has not yet had time to overcome the severe shortage of family doctors. Meeting government health targets does not benefit patients

Meeting government health targets does not benefit patients
Sir: Jeremy Laurance (Health Check, 16 November) has provided an explanation for the problems encountered by patients all over the UK, including my 85-year-old mother, in making appointments to see a GP. Appointments at her health centre can now only be made on a daily basis, by telephoning after 8.30am.

The lines are constantly engaged, so that by the time she gets through there are no vacant appointments available for that day and she must try again the next day. No future appointments are permitted.Last week my father, also 85 years old, had to drive my mother to the health centre at 8.30am in order to make an appointment They had to return later in the day for her to see a doctor. If my father could not drive, my mother would have to take a taxi at 8am, not to see the doctor but to make an appointment to see one. The new system means that it is virtually impossible to see the same doctor twice. No doubt the practice will be able to claim that it is meeting government targets for appointment waiting times.It is clear that GPs, primary care trusts, and hospital trusts are using what could be described as suspect means, all fully permitted within the Government’s rules and guidelines, to appear to meet healthcare targets. The meeting of such targets is a primary focus since health service star rating depends on them. Large sums of NHS money are used to monitor the statistics by complicated and unwieldy tiers of administration, whilst patients continue to struggle with the reality of a service which frequently confuses them and hinders their access to prompt treatment.PAM DODD London W5Sir: Jeremy Laurance identifies the practical impossibilities GPs face in trying to implement the government’s 48-hour access target for patient appointments.

But history tells us that, in all departments of life, talented pioneers pave the way for people much more modestly blessed, and restaurant criticism is no exception.That said, it is still a repository for fine writing, whatever Mr Johnson thinks. I can even think of some excellent writers who know that great cooking does not necessarily end where Fulham Broadway meets North End Road. So if Mr Johnson wants to hurl something nasty at certain national newspaper restaurant critics who have the cheek to pronounce on standards of service when SW-something is as far as they can be bothered to drag their tastebuds, I’ll be right behind him with the macaroni cheese.b.viner independent.co.uk
More from Brian Viner. As entertainment, I suppose, that’s fine; as criticism, such diatribes are beneath contempt.”He’s right Indeed, he’s more right than he knows. The art of criticism generally, whether of restaurants, television, literature or anything else, has been ill served this last decade or so by heavy-handed mockery. In fact, he should switch his target; there are more examples of poor restaurants prospering on the back of unjustly good reviews.Still, Mr Johnson’s “hysterical tirade”, as it was described by one indignant critic, is not without foundation.

A clear pattern has emerged, whereby a particularly skilled writer pioneers a style that might be mocking but is leavened by perception as well as wit. This is then copied by less skilful writers who can manage only the mockery.In restaurant criticism, the pioneer of this style was Craig Brown. I still chuckle at a line he himself must have long forgotten, when he lampooned the adjectival incontinence of many restaurant wine lists by describing a particular cabernet sauvignon as evoking nothing so much as a banana with its own chat show. He also asserts that “certain critics specialise in rude reviews, making readers laugh at the efforts of the chef and staff in whichever establishment is being pilloried. Often, it shows you are getting it right, not wrong.Moreover, in a world without restaurant critics, who would heap richly-deserved damnation on such miserable practices as leaving open boxes for gratuities on credit card slips, when a service charge has already been levied? Who would expose preposterous mark-ups on wine? Who would ridicule surliness or shoddiness among waiting staff, or plain incompetence in the kitchen? And conversely, who would bring to our attention the fabulous little bistro in an unfashionable part of London or even in the hinterland beyond the M25?Mr Johnson questions a critic’s moral right to help bankrupt an establishment, but no good restaurant ever closed because of unjustly bad reviews.