Al. The system is designed to take the best and only the best. There are never enough places, granted, but having enough A levels and A* GCSE or equivalent isn't the only issue.

We have a system, that doesn't quite work, of planning for twenty years hence. Today's 18 year olds will, in many specialties only become consultants by 36+ and the attrition rate is high, as medicine is by far the most demanding profession in terms of training. I am bemused by how many top barristers turned to law after not getting a training number at some part of their career. Don't forget, over 70% of doctors in your average hospital are junior, meaning they are employed on behalf of the post graduate deanery of a local university. They may yet not make the grade.

Me? I'm a doctor, but failed to get a registrar training number and am now a reader at a medical school at a university.

The documentary rightly points out that the attrition rate is lower with students from public schools. I was taught at a comprehensive and my public school colleagues were, on average, far more prepared for the intensive training. I did my uni' and ten years of junior doctor training before being tempted by academia. The early learning curve was steep and my school qualifications of thirty five years ago wouldn't get me in medical school now, not by a long way.

I don't think we choose on background and although I am not involved in admissions would argue we go out of our way to be inclusive, but yes, class base is a realistic assessment if educational attainment is deemed to be class based as medical schools can, should and will only put the very best through for training, and rightly so. Don't blame the medical schools for choosing the best, blame the education system for where the best are delivered from. We just need to get smarter in specialty training and that doesn't start till seven years after starting 'uni. How many GPs? How many Cardio Thoracic surgeons? Ten years ago, elderly care physicians were deemed to be the wrong way of doing things, now we realise they are a good thing... Advancements and circumstance, crystal ball gazing to give it another title.

Just a point for the criminal from round the loch. Nobody in Cuba, not known for liberalism, has rounded up anybody. The real Musket (I am one of the Muskets but most of the sexual health posts have been dealt with by Ian) may answer himself, but I know the Cuban screening was based on the UK system in place that has resulted in huge success, especially with gay people. Ed has given the facts above. People told they have a duty to attend screening, just as we say.

People who engage in unsafe sex should in both their interest and the interest of others volunteer for screening. Whether they be gay or straight. The latest report clearly shows the huge success in encouraging gay men who are sexually active to come forward. The high early detection and low late detection in that demographic shows the way forward. More people living with HIV got it from heterosexual sex but if you are sexually active and don't use a condom, gay men stand a slightly higher chance of becoming HIV +

I do wish the monster would stop lying all the same. He says he hates gay people, so having said it and never explaining why, not that anybody is interested, perhaps he could stop vilifying us? He is known where I live, and sadly, it isn't just Mudcat that has to put up with him. He is known locally as "here he comes" and "there he goes."