:00:10. > :00:19.Panorama investigates how far some drug companies will go
:00:20. > :00:19.Panorama investigates how far some If we don't do something soon it
:00:20. > :00:27.will be all the worse If we don't do something soon it
:00:28. > :00:38.of paying kickbacks to doctors abroad. Now we
:00:39. > :00:45.of paying kickbacks to doctors pay doctors, they give us
:00:46. > :00:46.prescription. We don't pay doctors, we
:00:47. > :00:46.prescription. We don't pay doctors, legal. We go undercover to see the
:00:47. > :00:53.doctors who legal. We go undercover to see the
:00:54. > :01:01.in terms of the drug treatment of any addiction. With
:01:02. > :01:01.in terms of the drug treatment of transparency. If people are being
:01:02. > :01:07.paid, transparency. If people are being
:01:08. > :01:36.We are all prescribed medicines at best
:01:37. > :01:41.We are all prescribed medicines at some point in our lives. And we
:01:42. > :01:46.trust that what we get is simply what's best for our health. Across
:01:47. > :01:51.the UK, we were prescribed more than a billion drugs last year at a cost
:01:52. > :01:53.to the NHS of more than ?10 billion. So that's big business for the
:01:54. > :02:03.pharmaceutical industry. This is the story of the tactics
:02:04. > :02:09.companies use at home and abroad to tap into that lucrative market. Here
:02:10. > :02:12.in the UK there are strict rules to govern what drug companies can get
:02:13. > :02:20.up to. But that doesn't stop them spending millions trying to persuade
:02:21. > :02:23.doctors to prescribe their drugs. One of the most controversial
:02:24. > :02:28.methods is paying doctors to promote their drugs to fellow medical staff.
:02:29. > :02:32.Most patients trust their doctors or want to trust them. And I think they
:02:33. > :02:35.may well be quite shocked if they knew that their doctor was taking
:02:36. > :02:38.money from an individual drug company or was committing to speak
:02:39. > :02:47.on that company's behalf in favour of a particular drug. Right across
:02:48. > :02:53.medicine doctors are being paid in this way and it's perfectly legal.
:02:54. > :02:59.And where does this subtle persuasion often take place? The
:03:00. > :03:02.Medical Conference. Munich in March and thousands of psychiatrists from
:03:03. > :03:08.across Europe are here for what is classed as an educational event.
:03:09. > :03:10.We've come to investigate how conferences like this are used to
:03:11. > :03:22.market prescription-only medicines to doctors. And there's no shortage
:03:23. > :03:26.of slick sales techniques. If I want my free wifi, I have to go up to the
:03:27. > :03:34.Lundbeck stall and guess what? The user name is one of their medicines.
:03:35. > :03:40.Sycrest. Oh sorry. Sycrest. OK? Drug company sponsorship of this four-day
:03:41. > :03:46.event runs to more than ?800,000. To cut through all the spin we called
:03:47. > :03:49.in an expert. Professor Tim Kendall. Medical director of an NHS Trust,
:03:50. > :03:58.who also helps produce treatment guidelines for doctors across
:03:59. > :04:02.England. I've never been to a conference like this apart from
:04:03. > :04:10.coming to give a talk and then going. What it feels like is a trade
:04:11. > :04:13.fair. The first thing Professor Kendall notices is just how many
:04:14. > :04:18.fellow doctors from Britain are here. Nearly 300. How wise are they
:04:19. > :04:22.to some of the more subtle sales techniques? Throughout the
:04:23. > :04:27.conference there are sessions like these. They are completely organised
:04:28. > :04:31.and paid for by individual drug companies because they've got a drug
:04:32. > :04:36.they want to promote. But speakers include some of the biggest names in
:04:37. > :04:41.British psychiatry. We caught a glimpse of Oxford Professor and
:04:42. > :04:44.consultant psychiatrist Guy Goodwin. He's being paid to speak at a
:04:45. > :04:48.symposium organised by French drug company Servier. It's not part of
:04:49. > :04:52.the main conference programme but it's in the same venue. Professor
:04:53. > :05:07.Kendall went to listen and we tried to follow with a camera. Oh no, why
:05:08. > :05:11.not? I don't know. They wouldn't let us film the session. We went in with
:05:12. > :05:14.a hidden camera. It was a full house, with many delegates from the
:05:15. > :05:18.UK. Thank you to the organisers. It's a pleasure to be here at this
:05:19. > :05:21.EPA. An innocent enough opening. But all speakers are supposed to list
:05:22. > :05:29.any financial links to drug companies before talking. Professor
:05:30. > :05:33.Goodwin didn't declare his list. He later told us this was an honest
:05:34. > :05:35.oversight, which he regrets. In the symposium, Professor Goodwin talked
:05:36. > :05:40.about the under-treatment of depression. Then two other speakers
:05:41. > :05:50.talked favourably about Servier's drug, agomelatine.
:05:51. > :05:55.It's a licensed antidepressant which is not recommended for use in the UK
:05:56. > :06:02.by our medicines' watchdogs. Doctors can still choose to prescribe it
:06:03. > :06:06.though. A lot of UK based people in the audience they will be going back
:06:07. > :06:17.and they will be thinking, right, agomelatine, that could be the next
:06:18. > :06:19.drug. I'm really worried about this. His biggest concern was reserved for
:06:20. > :06:22.the credibility experts like Professor Goodwin can give to an
:06:23. > :06:29.industry event, even though he didn't mention agomelatine directly.
:06:30. > :06:32.My real worry is that these very eminent and very able people are
:06:33. > :06:35.walking into industry sponsored symposia and in that context they
:06:36. > :06:41.are just being used. The place is packed. It was a full house, wasn't
:06:42. > :06:44.it? Absolutely packed and I'm sure it was packed because of Guy.
:06:45. > :06:48.Certainly this delegate from the UK seemed impressed. When somebody like
:06:49. > :06:52.Guy Goodwin is talking, is that a draw for you? Oh definitely again
:06:53. > :06:59.because I'm based in Oxford. I know Professor Goodwin from Oxford. The
:07:00. > :07:00.whole event is really good. We asked Servier about employing Guy Goodwin.
:07:01. > :07:23.In a statement they told us: They also told us they don't promote
:07:24. > :07:26.agomelatine in the UK. Tim Kendall later approached Professor Goodwin
:07:27. > :07:32.to ask if he's comfortable being paid to take part in events like
:07:33. > :07:42.this. His answer? He didn't take a vow of poverty when he became a
:07:43. > :07:45.professor. His genuine view is that a lot of doctors are involved in
:07:46. > :07:47.working with the industry and sometimes that does bring some
:07:48. > :07:51.benefits, financial benefits to them. He didn't think that in itself
:07:52. > :07:54.was wrong and I think there's probably quite a lot of doctors who
:07:55. > :07:57.think that. Professor Goodwin didn't want to be interviewed. But later he
:07:58. > :08:19.told Panorama: He told us he earns ?11,000 a year
:08:20. > :08:22.from such talks. But that's not all. He's also paid to advise or consult
:08:23. > :08:29.for these eight drug companies. Professor Goodwin wouldn't tell us
:08:30. > :08:31.how much he earns from that. Back in Britain, does this sort of
:08:32. > :08:37.sponsorship really influence prescribing? One Glasgow GP thinks
:08:38. > :08:42.it does and for that reason Des Spence doesn't go to any
:08:43. > :08:50.industry-sponsored events. There's a trickle-down effect. So if you have
:08:51. > :08:53.a leading expert or group that, you know, over the course of time that
:08:54. > :08:56.trickles down to general practice and we start changing our clinical
:08:57. > :08:59.care, you know. Whether we prescribe more statins, whether we prescribe
:09:00. > :09:02.more antidepressants. This directly affects your care. The body that
:09:03. > :09:08.represents the industry says patients benefit from their work
:09:09. > :09:17.with doctors. ?50 billion a year is spent on research and development by
:09:18. > :09:19.this industry. That has made HIV a liveable condition, diabetes,
:09:20. > :09:23.coronary heart disease, asthma, all these things that have been
:09:24. > :09:25.transformed. Now, to do that does require a relationship with health
:09:26. > :09:29.care professionals, both in research and also in, if you like, in terms
:09:30. > :09:32.of usage of those medicines with patients. It's a thin line though
:09:33. > :09:37.between education and promotion, isn't it? It's a very thin line,
:09:38. > :09:40.absolutely. But I would also say is that, of course, what we do is
:09:41. > :09:43.completely and absolutely legitimate. It's perfectly legal for
:09:44. > :09:46.drug companies to pay doctors to speak. It happens right across
:09:47. > :09:52.medicine. And so does sponsorship of doctors' education. But how
:09:53. > :09:56.objective is the information at industry-funded events? We went
:09:57. > :10:01.along to one at this Hertfordshire hotel. It was billed as a clinical
:10:02. > :10:06.lecture about the treatment of alcohol dependence. This is it. The
:10:07. > :10:12.event is invitation-only though, so we've sent in a hidden camera. The
:10:13. > :10:18.invitation made clear the event is organised and sponsored by Danish
:10:19. > :10:21.drug company, Lundbeck. Inside, we found a large turnout, many GPs, who
:10:22. > :10:24.had come to hear an eminent addictions expert. Professor David
:10:25. > :10:26.Nutt was soon singing the praises of Lundbeck's new drug to treat heavy
:10:27. > :10:47.drinking. By the end of his 45-minute talk,
:10:48. > :11:11.there was no mistaking his enthusiasm for the drug, nalmefene.
:11:12. > :11:26.We showed Professor Kendall our undercover footage of how nalmefene
:11:27. > :11:29.is being promoted directly to GPs. I think the presentation had very
:11:30. > :11:33.little in the way of anything critical. If I was a GP and I didn't
:11:34. > :11:36.have the knowledge that I had, I would come out and I would be
:11:37. > :11:39.prescribing that tomorrow. Nalmefene is only recommended in the UK if
:11:40. > :11:42.it's prescribed alongside long-term psychological support. That was in
:11:43. > :11:46.the slides behind him but Professor Nutt didn't make it clear in his
:11:47. > :11:50.talk. When we contacted him later, Professor Nutt said was paid the
:11:51. > :12:11.standard industry rate for the talk. He told Panorama:
:12:12. > :12:15.Doctors need to earn a certain number of points each year towards
:12:16. > :12:18.their Continuing Professional Development, or CPD, by going to
:12:19. > :12:22.training events. Our undercover reporter asked the Chairman if CPD
:12:23. > :12:28.points could be claimed from this event. Can he claim this as CPD
:12:29. > :12:34.points? Absolutely 100%. Really? It's CPD. 100% he can. Do you think
:12:35. > :12:40.that sort of event should count as training for doctors? Not at all.
:12:41. > :12:43.Absolutely should not. I have a real problem with drug companies putting
:12:44. > :12:47.on an event called education that's clearly to sell the drug and that
:12:48. > :12:56.being declared as some sort of contribution to their CPD. It's a
:12:57. > :12:58.joke. Lundbeck later told us its event chairman, a consultant
:12:59. > :13:00.psychiatrist, was not qualified to make such comments and had got it
:13:01. > :13:16.wrong. Yet the Chairman was emphatic on the
:13:17. > :13:24.night that CPD points would be awarded. 100% he can. All right, OK.
:13:25. > :13:26.I don't think he realised that. 100% he can. You get two CPD credits for
:13:27. > :13:35.this. We later asked the chair if he had
:13:36. > :13:36.been 100% wrong. As far as he was concerned it was a scientific
:13:37. > :13:47.lecture that: With such a thin line between
:13:48. > :13:50.education and promotion is it any wonder there's confusion over which
:13:51. > :13:58.events qualify for CPD points and which don't?
:13:59. > :14:06.The editor of the British Medical Journal thinks drug companies should
:14:07. > :14:09.be kept out of doctors' education. The drug industry has a conflict of
:14:10. > :14:13.interest. They are there to make money for their shareholders, white
:14:14. > :14:17.right, legitimate, and in doing so, they often create good products
:14:18. > :14:24.which we rely on and need. But they do not have a legitimate role in the
:14:25. > :14:28.education of doctors. Even with sponsorship that is strictly
:14:29. > :14:33.regulated, concerns are growing about its influence on the
:14:34. > :14:37.prescribing of doctors. But elsewhere in the world, some of the
:14:38. > :14:43.biggest names in the pharmaceutical industry have been accused of
:14:44. > :14:46.breaking the law. Britain's most profitable drug company,
:14:47. > :14:53.GlaxoSmithKline, was forced to pay a massive settlement in the US in
:14:54. > :14:59.2012. GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $3 billion... It is to do with
:15:00. > :15:07.how it promoted some of it strikes... This is unprecedented in
:15:08. > :15:15.scope and size... Blair Hamrick started work for GSK as a sales rep
:15:16. > :15:17.in Colorado back in 1997. He says he and his colleagues would pay doctors
:15:18. > :15:23.to promote their drugs to other doctors, sometimes thousands of
:15:24. > :15:29.dollars for a few hours work. It is always under the guise of education.
:15:30. > :15:33.Doctors have to get so many hours of continuing medical education. Well,
:15:34. > :15:39.we would have these programmes which would get credit for the doctors.
:15:40. > :15:46.They were nothing but a commercial. Doctors were sent on foreign trips
:15:47. > :15:54.and given lavish hospitality, kickbacks, essentially, to encourage
:15:55. > :16:00.increased sales. They would be sent on trips to Jamaica or Bermuda, or
:16:01. > :16:08.Disney World in Orlando, Florida. They would be taken out to dinner.
:16:09. > :16:13.Entertainments, Madonna concerts, basketball games, the tickets which
:16:14. > :16:19.were the hardest to get. And GSK kept a close eye on whether it was
:16:20. > :16:25.money well spent. There was what is called an ROI analysis analysis,
:16:26. > :16:30.return on investment. So, if we spent $5,000 on a speaker and we
:16:31. > :16:35.spend $20,000 on tickets and food, that is $25,000 invested. They would
:16:36. > :16:39.take all of those physicians and they would track their prescription
:16:40. > :16:42.volume, and they would want to see an increase in prescription is
:16:43. > :16:50.greater than $25,000. It is business. Did you generally see a
:16:51. > :16:53.good return on investments? Always. Times were good. Blair Hamrick had a
:16:54. > :16:57.young son, which focused his mind when he was asked to market an
:16:58. > :17:02.antidepressant for children. The drug was only approved for adults,
:17:03. > :17:07.and he knew it could cause seizures. Being a father myself, I
:17:08. > :17:12.said, wait a second, if a kid has a seizure on this medicine, whose
:17:13. > :17:16.fault is it? Is it mine, is it the company, is it the doctor? And I
:17:17. > :17:20.could not have that on my conscience. When I raised the
:17:21. > :17:27.concern with my manager, my manager said, everybody is doing it, so you
:17:28. > :17:31.had better do it as well. It is illegal to promote drugs to doctors
:17:32. > :17:34.outside of the license, like this. But it is claimed that the bonus
:17:35. > :17:40.system encouraged breaking the rules. During the court case, GSK
:17:41. > :17:47.agreed to stop linking bonuses to sales targets in the US. You want a
:17:48. > :17:52.doctor prescribing decisions to be independent. You want them to be
:17:53. > :17:56.objective. You do not want the relationship between a physician and
:17:57. > :18:01.his or her patient to be interfered with by a pharmaceutical company,
:18:02. > :18:05.which is driven by profits. Back so Smith Klein is not the only drug
:18:06. > :18:11.company to fall foul of the law in the US, but it has the worst track
:18:12. > :18:14.record. One campaign group has analysed all of the pay-outs by the
:18:15. > :18:21.drug industry for any kind of rule breaking in the US over the last two
:18:22. > :18:26.decades. -- GlaxoSmithKline. Glaxo was the number one, with $7.6
:18:27. > :18:31.billion, in terms of criminal penalties. Even hefty fines and
:18:32. > :18:37.settlements have not stopped Britain's GSK offending again. The
:18:38. > :18:41.penalties are not large enough to deter these illegal activities. In
:18:42. > :18:45.one year, Glaxo makes more money in terms of profits and all of the
:18:46. > :18:51.penalties they have paid over 21 years. GSK's chief executive
:18:52. > :18:53.declined to be interviewed. In a statement, the company said that in
:18:54. > :19:08.the US... With an annual turnover last year of
:19:09. > :19:14.more than ?26 billion, GSK is a massive enterprise. And it is not
:19:15. > :19:20.just in the US that the company has been accused of making illegal
:19:21. > :19:25.payments to doctors. Police in China have today accused the British drug
:19:26. > :19:31.giant GlaxoSmithKline of using travel agencies as vehicles to bribe
:19:32. > :19:36.officials and doctors... The Chinese authorities claimed that 300 minimum
:19:37. > :19:40.pounds was paid by GSK to government officials and doctors in China. The
:19:41. > :19:44.company is waiting to see if it faces prosecution there, and says it
:19:45. > :19:48.is cooperating fully with the investigation. GSK could face
:19:49. > :19:54.prosecution in Britain - it is against the law to bribe the company
:19:55. > :19:57.has told the Serious Fraud Office here about the allegations in
:19:58. > :20:01.China, and clearly it wants to draw a line under the issue of illegal
:20:02. > :20:06.payments. In the last fortnight, though, new allegations have emerged
:20:07. > :20:11.about the companies behaviour in Iraq. And now, Panorama can reveal
:20:12. > :20:18.more allegations of corruption. We have uncovered evidence that GSK
:20:19. > :20:29.sales reps have recently been paying doctors to boost prescriptions much
:20:30. > :20:36.closer to home, in Europe. There is a simple equation - we pay doctors,
:20:37. > :20:42.they give us prescription. We don't pay doctors, we do not see
:20:43. > :20:48.prescription for our drugs. . Jarek Wisniewski once had a good life with
:20:49. > :20:51.his family in Poland. He worked as a sales rep for GlaxoSmithKline until
:20:52. > :21:00.2012, and at first, the future looked bright. I was in a programme
:21:01. > :21:05.for future managers. Really, they invest in me. I was a talent, they
:21:06. > :21:11.said. I was a talent for them. But things started to change for him in
:21:12. > :21:18.2010. GSK launched a major marketing programme across Poland to push its
:21:19. > :21:24.asthma drug Seretide. The budget of this programme was more than 5
:21:25. > :21:33.million Polish money, about ?1 million. It is a really huge
:21:34. > :21:37.marketing programme, extra money, for increased sales, because we need
:21:38. > :21:45.to sell more. Always more, more, more. For the first time, Jarek is
:21:46. > :21:52.speaking publicly about exactly how he and his colleagues hosted sales.
:21:53. > :21:56.He says that on paper, the budget was to educate patients about
:21:57. > :22:06.asthma, but the reality, he says, was that they paid doctors to
:22:07. > :22:13.prescribe more Seretide. I said, I need more prescription for Seretide.
:22:14. > :22:25.So they knew exactly for what I was paying. So this was a deal that
:22:26. > :22:31.everybody understood? Yes. Another former GSK drug sales rep, who does
:22:32. > :22:35.not want to be identified, confirms that they routinely paid doctors for
:22:36. > :22:39.lectures that never happened. Do you find that this tactic worked, that
:22:40. > :22:50.if you paid doctors, they tended to prescribe more? Yes, of course. The
:22:51. > :22:54.Dr feels obliged. How did you feel about that? TRANSLATION: Like many
:22:55. > :22:59.people, my feelings were very negative and unpleasant, but that
:23:00. > :23:05.was the work. Just like in the US years before, the more prescriptions
:23:06. > :23:10.they could secure, and they say their manager also expected them to
:23:11. > :23:17.secure a return on investment. On the first pitch, we pay ?100. But
:23:18. > :23:23.we expect more than 100 perceptions. So, although the deal verbally
:23:24. > :23:30.between you and the doctor was clear, it was not written down like
:23:31. > :23:34.that anywhere? No. With doctors in Poland earning around ?700 a month,
:23:35. > :23:40.even small cash incentives could be lucrative. What you are essentially
:23:41. > :23:48.describing is a bribe. Yes, it is a bribe. Two years ago, he told GSK he
:23:49. > :23:51.the result - he says he was sidelined at work and eventually
:23:52. > :23:57.sacked. Now, there is a criminal investigation. 11 doctors and one
:23:58. > :24:01.GSK regional manager have been charged. One of the doctors, who did
:24:02. > :24:07.not want to be interviewed, told Panorama you did take money from
:24:08. > :24:13.GSK. He told us he took 500 zlotys, about ?100, for a single lecture
:24:14. > :24:14.which he never gave. He said he blamed the pharmaceutical
:24:15. > :24:17.representatives, because it is hard to refuse when they keep putting
:24:18. > :24:25.pressure on you. They kept tempting, you said, and I am just a man. The
:24:26. > :24:30.regional public prosecutor has examined the contracts which doctors
:24:31. > :24:37.like him were given by GSK. They found evidence to support claims of
:24:38. > :24:40.corrupt payments. TRANSLATION: In more than a dozen
:24:41. > :24:48.cases, these contracts were fictitious. So, these payments were
:24:49. > :24:51.in effect bribes? Yes. We have evidence to claim that in more than
:24:52. > :24:56.a dozen cases, it was a camouflaged form of bribe. And was the deal
:24:57. > :25:01.actually that the doctors were to prescribe more drugs in return for
:25:02. > :25:06.this money? That was the point. In return for the financial gains, the
:25:07. > :25:08.doctors would favour the product proposed by the pharmaceutical
:25:09. > :25:12.company and they would prescribe that medicine. What we have
:25:13. > :25:15.uncovered in Poland is significant, because it could eventually lead to
:25:16. > :25:23.an investigation by the authorities both in the GlaxoSmithKline told us
:25:24. > :25:25.it is cooperating with the investigation and has carried out
:25:26. > :25:46.one of its own. In the UK, the drug industry spent
:25:47. > :25:51.nearly ?40 million on health professionals last year. Payments
:25:52. > :25:57.are strictly regulator, but how easy is it to find out if your doctor has
:25:58. > :26:02.been paid? All NHS medical staff are expected to register any financial
:26:03. > :26:07.conflict-of-interest. We asked more than 200 NHS trusts and health
:26:08. > :26:11.boards across the UK if their register is publicly accessible.
:26:12. > :26:18.Only 6% said it was available online. The overwhelming majority
:26:19. > :26:22.say have to ask to see it. People who are being paid, please tell us
:26:23. > :26:26.how much you are being paid, because that will influence the message that
:26:27. > :26:29.you give. Perhaps doctors and experts are in a state of denial
:26:30. > :26:34.about that, but anybody with any common sense can see that you can
:26:35. > :26:38.pay people to give the message that you want. Things in the United
:26:39. > :26:43.States could not be more different. Since the end of last month, drug
:26:44. > :26:46.companies have been legally obliged to detail all payments to doctors.
:26:47. > :26:52.One research group has even created a single searchable database. So, if
:26:53. > :26:57.you want to know if your doctor is on the payroll of a drug company,
:26:58. > :27:06.just type in a name, and the computer does the rest. Yes, here is
:27:07. > :27:10.somebody. $145,000. The effect of this transparency has been
:27:11. > :27:17.startling. Payments to doctors in the US overall have plummeted. It is
:27:18. > :27:20.interesting, because it might be the company itself changing its
:27:21. > :27:24.behaviour, but also the doctors not wanting to be on the register, with
:27:25. > :27:29.those payments made public. Will transparency here have the same
:27:30. > :27:34.effect? The drug industry says it will publish all payments to doctors
:27:35. > :27:39.in the UK by 2016. We should never fool ourselves that doctors will be
:27:40. > :27:43.overly swayed by some of this commercial activity, given that they
:27:44. > :27:46.receive a lot of other information. Why on earth would the struck
:27:47. > :27:50.companies spend all of this money on doctors if it did not sway their
:27:51. > :27:57.prescribing? That is always interesting. But why would they?! My
:27:58. > :28:00.view is that it should sway their prescribing, I would say that
:28:01. > :28:03.categorically, because it is appropriate for doctors to prescribe
:28:04. > :28:08.medicines for patients that need them, within the right guidance. It
:28:09. > :28:13.is up to the doctor to decide what is right on all of the information
:28:14. > :28:19.that they receive, from all sources. But his transparency on its own
:28:20. > :28:22.enough? Back so SmithKline recently announced it will no longer pay
:28:23. > :28:26.doctors anywhere in the world to promote its drugs or sponsor them to
:28:27. > :28:32.go to conferences. -- back so SmithKline. This announcement from
:28:33. > :28:39.GSK seems to represent the beginning of the unpicking of decades of
:28:40. > :28:44.behaviour which has been regarded as acceptable, now, we are beginning to
:28:45. > :28:49.say, it was never OK, why did we ever think it was OK? A growing
:28:50. > :28:52.number of doctors macro now think it is time for a fundamental change in
:28:53. > :29:24.the relationship with the drug industry.
:29:25. > :29:26.Probably not seen as the most popular job.
:29:27. > :29:28.When I say I hate them, I mean I hate them.
:29:29. > :29:30.Who put that on it? Where's he gone?
:29:31. > :29:34.If there's one thing that drives us all crazy... This is wrong!