The locum doctor paid £5,700 a day: Enormous sums handed to agency staff by desperate NHS managers
The NHS paid one doctor £5,700 for a day’s work under a system which sees hospitals squander millions on agency medics to stand in at understaffed hospitals. Desperate trusts are being forced to hire temporary doctors during busy times to plug holes created by drastic cut backs, redundancies and reduced working hours for junior doctors.
Stand-in consultants earn as much as £3,200 for a single shift but one was paid £5,700 for working a 24-hour shift in an A&E unit. That is equivalent to a £510,000-a-year salary and more than five times the average wage of full-time staff consultants, who typically earn £90,000 a year.
The extraordinary sums are being handed out at the same time as routine treatments such as hip operations, cataract surgery and IVF are being suspended because they are deemed too expensive.
Experts say that Whitehall-imposed cutbacks designed to save the NHS money, such as recruitment freezes, are actually resulting in hospitals wasting millions hiring locums to cover unstaffed departments.
Figures uncovered through a Freedom of Information request show that some hospitals are spending up to £15million a year on temporary doctors at peak times. Many are forced to pay locums extortionate hourly rates to cover shifts that full-time consultants refuse to do, such as nights, weekends, Christmas and the August bank holiday.
Others pay out for temporary doctors because they are desperately short-staffed due to recruitment freezes and trusts not replacing medics who leave or retire, while some have started rounds of compulsory redundancies. Demand for agency staff has also increased since controversial EU rules were brought in last summer to stop junior doctors working more than 48 hours a week.
Critics warn that millions are being wasted on the inflated salaries and it would be far better spent recruiting full-time, experienced doctors.
The highest locum rates are being paid by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, where up to 1,200 patients died between 2005 and 2008 due to appalling standards of care. The hospital admitted paying one doctor £399 an hour for an eight-hour shift, a total of £3,192 for the day. On a separate occasion a locum consultant was paid £5,667 for a 24-hour shift in the trust’s A&E unit. Over the last year it paid £1.4million for locum doctors and another £2.1million for agency nurses.
Other trusts which have admitted spending vast amounts on locum doctors include Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals Trust in East London, which spent £8million last year, and Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust in Greater Manchester, which spent £15million.
Critics described the rates as ‘hugely wasteful’ and warned that patient safety could be jeopardised if hospitals became overly reliant on temporary staff unfamiliar with basic procedures.
The NHS has been ordered to make £20billion of efficiency savings across the board by 2014. As a result, health trusts are making tens of thousands of staff redundant and cancelling routine, non-urgent treatment such as hip and knee replacements.
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of The Patients Association, said: ‘It is outrageous that we are paying nearly £6,000 to an agency consultant to cover a 24-hour shift – the consultant will not know the policy and procedures of that hospital and could be putting patient safety at risk. ‘We want clinical mangers within hospitals to take responsibility for managing staff rotas to ensure there are enough doctors available to treat patients effectively and that safety is not compromised.’
Dr Mark Porter, head of the BMA’s Consultant Committee, said: ‘Many departments have become increasingly understaffed as trusts impose recruitment freezes. ‘Departments will be forced to offer locum agencies higher rates as they become increasingly desperate for staff cover.’
It is not known whether doctors take home all the money, or whether some is paid to agencies.
The Department of Health said: ‘The high cost of agency staff in the NHS is unacceptable. We have asked the NHS to reduce management costs, which includes agency costs, by 45 per cent in time for 2013/14.’
Careless NHS staff kill again -- and nobody's to blame
Elderly heart patient killed after his body was accidentally drained of blood following NHS blunder
A pensioner died after his chest was bled 'empty' when he was wrongly connected to a blood pumping machine and a hospital worker left the room. NHS staff failed to use enough clamps to disconnect 76-year-old Dr John Baines from the device after a gruelling six-hour bypass operation, on January 29. This meant his blood was pumped into the machine, which was filling in for his heart and lungs during the surgery, but not pumped back into his body.
An inquest heard how the pensioner, a former research chemist, had survived the complex procedure only to die days later due to brain damage caused by the blunder. NHS bosses in Nottingham have now apologised for the fatal error which left Dr Baines' brain starved of oxygen.
During a bypass operation, a heart-lung machine is used to remove blood from the body, fill it with oxygen and pump it back in. But due to a catalogue of errors, Dr Baines' blood pressure dropped dramatically after the man in charge of the machine at Nottingham City Hospital left the room. By the time hospital staff had discovered their mistake, it was already too late and his brain had been starved of oxygen.
Dr Baines, from Woodthorpe, Nottinghamshire, died in hospital 21 days later.
Deputy Assistant Coroner Mairin Casey said ruled that no one member of staff was to blame and his death was caused by a 'series of collective errors'.
The inquest heard cardiac surgeon David Richens left theatre when his heart was stable, but his blood pressure then began to drop and alarms went off.
He was given fluids and his chest was reopened upon which hospital staff realised something had gone catastrophically wrong.
Anaesthetist Dr Ganapathy Muthuswamy, said: 'The chest was empty. Just before this, my colleague walked in with results from the blood test. He was looking at the pump and quickly noticed the volume in it.'
The team began to put the blood back in, but Dr Baines' brain had been starved of oxygen for too long.
In a bypass operation, the pumps are operated by specially trained health professionals known as 'perfusionists', who work with the surgical team in connecting and disconnecting the machine to the patient.
However, the perfusionist who had been involved in the discussions about the complex operation was replaced before it began by two others, who oversaw the machine during the surgery. One of them, Andrew Sutcliffe, said they clamped the line from the patient's neck and assumed two other clamps required had been attached by other members of the team. He said: 'I think the issue is that we had clamped the common line. But clamps hadn't been applied where we would have expected them to.'
Mr Sutcliffe said he left the room before John's blood pressure began to drop because he was asked by a colleague to help with another job. He added: 'There was one of us there up to that point. It's very unfortunate that I was asked to help with something else. I should have refused, but I didn't.
'It was about a test on Dr Baines and obviously you think it is going to improve his outcome. It's quite normal for perfusionists to leave theatre at the end of a case. 'If I had stayed, I would have noticed blood going into the reservoir.'
Mr Richens added: 'I want to say how terribly sorry we all feel. Mine and my team's consolations go out to the family. I cannot imagine how they feel and we are profoundly sorry.'
Miss Casey recorded a narrative verdict and said the mistake was the result of collective rather than individual error. She said: 'I'm confident that from the earliest point the human error was acknowledged to the family and to all who needed to subsequently investigate this matter. 'I'm also satisfied that there's no culpability in respect of an individual in this case.'
Dr Stephen Fowlie, Medical Director at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, said: 'We offer our deepest sympathies to Dr Baines' family, and apologise that we so badly let down Dr Baines and his family. 'Our immediate investigation identified that the error had been caused by a coincidence of several weaknesses in our systems and processes for removing patients from heart bypass.
'The cardiac unit took action to considerably strengthen our safety systems, and to add checks to our procedures when we use heart bypass for these complex operations. 'We are closely monitoring the implementation of each of our investigation's recommendations. It is most important that we learn from our mistakes.
'We owe Dr Baines and his family nothing less, but recognise that explanation and strengthened checks cannot compensate them for their loss.' 'We offer our deepest sympathies to Dr Baines' family, and apologise that we so badly let down Dr Baines and his family.'
The health trust carried out a Serious Untoward Incident report and have made recommendations following the bungle. It also paid an undisclosed amount of compensation to Dr Baines' family. Following this, NHS chiefs promised to alter working practices to prevent such a tragedy from occurring again.
Speaking after the inquest, his heartbroken widow Patricia said she hoped lessons had been learned from the 'horrendous accident'. She said: 'The coroner gave a narrative verdict, meaning they couldn't give the blame to any one person. 'All in all, it was a dreadful thing that happened. It's now over a year since he died and I still have not got used to the idea. 'I'm not going to blame anyone in particular, but hopefully they have now got things in place to ensure it will never happen again.
'We feel very, very upset about it, but so did the hospital and they have compensated us financially up to a point. They never tried to deny that it was their fault.'
Paying tribute to her husband, who she described as her 'soulmate', she added: 'If you asked any of his friends they would all describe him as a gentleman and that is what he was. 'He was very courteous, very kind, very generous and a lovely man. We know it shouldn't have happened, but it did and we have to cope with it. 'We had 52 years and three months together and we had a very happy marriage. Not many people can say that. It's just a shame that our old age together was cut short.'
Dr Baines leaves behind two sons, Martin and Iain.
Crooked British Muslim cop is made to pay just £750 of £64,500 trial costs... despite his THREE homes
Disgraced police chief Ali Dizaei was at the centre of a new storm last night after it emerged he has been forced to pay just £750 towards the prosecution costs of his corruption trial.
The Crown Prosecution Service had asked that three-times married Dizaei be ordered to pay their £64,500 bill for the four-week hearing earlier this year. But despite owning three homes worth a total of £1million, playboy Dizaei – who had expensive tastes in women, cars and clothes – said he was virtually penniless and able to pay only a tiny amount. After considering his case, Southwark Crown Court ordered that he pay £750 plus VAT towards the prosecution costs.
Yet the Mail can reveal that Dizaei owns homes in Acton and Chiswick in West London, and co-owns a property in Henley-on-Thames with his former wife Natalie.
Before his corruption conviction, Dizaei won a substantial five-figure libel payout from a Sunday newspaper. It is not known where the money went.
The decision to make the former Met Commander pay so little has staggered his former colleagues in the Metropolitan Police. One said: ‘A lot of people find it very hard to believe he is only worth £750. Many people will think he’s played the system and won.’
According to publicly available Land Registry documents, each of Dizaei’s homes is mortgaged. It is not known how much equity is in each.
Dizaei, 47, was jailed for four years in February for abusing his police position to bully a young businessman. He assaulted and falsely arrested Iraqi Waad al-Baghdadi, 24, after the businessman asked for £600 he was owed for creating a website showcasing Dizaei’s career.
He was sacked from his £90,000-a-year job at Scotland Yard in March but, despite his dismissal, will still be able to claim at least a third of his gold-plated police pension in the future.
A former president of the militant National Black Police Association, he has endured a torrid time since being jailed, including an attack in which he was knocked out and had a slop bucket poured over him.
The Iranian-born former officer, who spent thousands of pounds on a hair transplant, has also been goaded about the colour of his hair after it turned grey without lashings of black dye. Dizaei is now in Leyhill open prison in Gloucestershire.
In August, it emerged Dizaei plans to sue the prison service for failing to protect him from a brawl in which he allegedly attacked another cellmate at a previous jail in South Wales. He is demanding damages from prison authorities – even though he is being investigated by police for allegedly assaulting another inmate.
Southwark Court confirmed that Dizaei has been ordered to pay just £750 plus VAT for the prosecution costs of his trial. The CPS refused to comment.
Nutty British prisons boss says inmates should have choice of FIVE dishes for dinner
Prisoners must be given a choice of at least five different dishes for dinner, it emerged last night. Under new rules – quickly dubbed ‘Porridge à la Carte’ – inmates will be presented with a menu from which to select their desired meal from the five on offer.
Governors must change the menu regularly to ensure the same options do not appear more than once a month. The order dictating the changes even insists that prisoners are ‘consulted’ about the quality of meals served. Prisons minister Crispin Blunt, who previously gave the go-ahead for Halloween and Christmas parties for inmates, is responsible for prisoner food rules.
Critics described the regulations as ‘lunacy’. The rules, issued by the Ministry of Justice and sent to every jail in England and Wales, came into force on October 1 but were only published yesterday.
Diktats include that drug addicts trying to get clean should be given hot chocolate because it is ‘comforting’. New inmates must be given an arrival pack containing tea and coffee, sweets and cigarettes. And late arrivals – such as newly-sentenced prisoners – must be given a hot meal even if they arrive at the prison after all the other inmates have eaten.
Fiona McEvoy, campaign manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: ‘While many ordinary, law-abiding taxpayers struggle for cash and brace themselves for cuts in services, these convicts are getting five-star treatment on the public purse. ‘The amount of effort and planning going into these menus is just insulting – it seems criminals are being fed better than patients, school children and the elderly in many cases. ‘No one would deny inmates a decent meal, but this is just ridiculous.’
Tory MP Douglas Carswell added: ‘Surely we should be giving individual prison governors control over meals and letting them see what works and what gets results? ‘Why are we trying to micro-manage the prison service from the centre, right down to the amount of gravy and type of vegetables prisoners have for their meals? It’s lunacy.’
The edict follows a bizarre speech by Mr Blunt last month in which he said inmates should be served perfectly-sized and shaped apples to prevent ‘fruit riots’. He told the House of Commons that ‘undersize’ fruit handed out at jail canteens could create ‘issues of order and control’.
‘It is worth remembering that discontent about the quality of food, changes to menus and failure to deliver what was previously promised have been known to be the catalyst for serious disturbances,’ he said.
‘An undersize apple handed out at the servery will create issues of order and control, so we use suppliers that are sensitive to that need and that use their sourcing ability to maintain consistency from their supply base.’
Mr Blunt provoked outrage within weeks of his appointment by lifting a ban on taxpayer-funded prisoner parties and comedy workshops for high security inmates. The MP for Reigate – who is the uncle of actress Emily Blunt – was swiftly slapped down by Downing Street, and the decision reversed the following day. He was slapped down again after he said criminals could get their jail sentences slashed if they said sorry.
And there was further outrage when it emerged that newly-released prisoners are being offered free mobile phones in a taxpayer-funded ‘welcome pack’ when they arrive at bail hostels.
The ‘Catering – Meals for Prisoners’ section in Prison Service Instruction number 44/2010 states: ‘A multi-choice minimum five choices, pre-select menu including a minimum of one substantial hot meal choice per day will be provided for the lunch time or evening meal.’ Food must meet the ‘cultural, nutritional and diversity needs’ of inmates, the order states.
It adds: ‘The menu provides information which enables prisoners to make decisions about their menu choice. The menu cycle will be for a minimum of four weeks. ‘Prisoners are consulted about and can make comments on the catering provision.’ Officials said each menu would include a hot meal, a cold meal, a vegetarian option and one that is free of dairy products.
Every menu must also include a halal meal that complies with the Islamic code on how animals should be slaughtered.
Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘At a time when the Government is looking for ways to save money it’s quite extraordinary that the only people who look like they are going to be better off are prisoners. As far as I’m concerned it’s absolutely unacceptable and I think the public will be outraged.’
Although many prisons already offer a wide choice at mealtimes, it is thought to be the first time the five choices have been set in stone by ministers.
A Prison Service spokesman said: ‘The choice of meals that are available to prisoners reflect both religious and medical requirements, including halal, dairy free and vegetarian options. In practice this means a number of prisoners only have one choice.’
British school trips to be freed from health and safety red tape as Lord Young promises to roll back compensation culture
Red tape surrounding school trips is to be slashed as part of a Government drive to inject ‘common sense’ into Britain’s health and safety laws. Former Cabinet minister Lord Young said the regulation surrounding school trips was now so onerous that many teachers no longer bothered to organise them – leading millions of children to miss out on a vital part of their education.
Launching a Government report on health and safety laws today Lord Young criticised the ‘enormous bureaucracy’ currently surrounding school trips. He said ministers would cut back the 12-page risk assessment that currently has to be completed by teachers for each trip. Parents will also be able to sign a single consent form which covers a child’s entire time at the school, to prevent the wasteful practice of seeking consent for every visit.
Lord Young, who was appointed by David Cameron to roll back Britain’s compensation culture, said: ‘The simple truth is that filling in a form doesn’t make a trip more safe. ‘Children are potentially missing out on vital education because schools just do not have the time and resource to carry out the process. ‘If they do, they are too concerned about the threat of legal action should an accident happen.’
The report also calls for risk assessments of children’s play areas to consider the benefits of giving youngsters somewhere to play rather than focusing solely on the potential risks.
Lord Young said health and safety laws originally designed for dangerous industries were now being applied to a range of jobs and everyday activities that are ‘non-hazardous’.
He also hit out at no-win, no-fee lawyers for fuelling the compensation culture, saying: ‘I started out as a lawyer and I am frankly ashamed of some of the things that I have seen.’ The new report calls for a crackdown on adverts encouraging people to launch a compensation claim for even the most trivial accident.
Lord Young said the Government would ban the practice of law firms and claims handlers offering people up to £500 up front in return for lodging a compensation claim. Lord Young said the growth of the compensation culture led to higher insurance premiums for millions of businesses and individuals, and persuaded many organisations to adopt an unnecessarily risk-averse approach.
He said the insurance industry was also ‘part of the problem’. He added: ‘Businesses now operate their health and safety policies in a climate of fear. The advent of 'no win, no fee' claims and the all-pervasive advertising by claims management companies have significantly added to the belief that there is a nationwide compensation culture.’
Two years ago teachers at the John F. Kennedy Primary School in Washington, Tyne and Wear, scrapped the sports day sack race fearing children will fall over
The report ‘Common Sense, Common Safety’, which was accepted in its entirety by the Government, also calls for the introduction in law of a ‘Good Samaritan clause’ to make it clear that volunteers cannot be sued unless they have clearly acted recklessly or maliciously.
Lord Young said the move would prevent a repeat of the farce last winter when people were warned they could be sued for clearing the snow in front of their home if someone then slipped on the pavement.
A separate legislative move will make it clear that members of the emergency services will not risk prosecution on health and safety grounds in circumstances where they have acted heroically – a move immediately welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The Prime Minister said he hoped Lord Young’s report would prove to be a ‘turning point’ which would ‘help stop the creep of unnecessary health and safety culture that we have’.
Other changes include requiring killjoy councils that want to ban community events such as pancake races to put their reasons in writing. Organisers will be able to challenge any ruling and councils could be fined if they are found to have acted wrongly.
A new fixed-cost system for resolving compensation in road traffic accidents will be extended to cover straightforward personal injury claims.
Simpler guidance on health and safety will be published for offices and other low-risk workplaces, and employers will not have to conduct a full health and safety assessment for staff who work from home.
Lord Young insisted that his reforms, which will be rolled out over the next 18 months, would have no impact on important health and safety laws in hazardous workplaces.
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber described the report as a ‘grave disappointment’ which could throw safety improvements into reverse. Mr Barber said: ‘The report contains not a single proposal that will reduce the high levels of workplace death, injuries and illness.’
Children's heart surgery unit at Oxford hospital to close following baby deaths
The children's heart surgery unit of the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford where four babies died is preparing to close following a government review. Heart operations on children were suspended at the hospital earlier this year after the babies died within a few months of a new surgeon starting work there.
The NHS Safe and Sustainable review team has assessed the 11 paediatric heart centres in England in a bid to decide which are to become larger, regional centres of excellence, and which are to close.
In a steering group meeting held yesterday, it was decided the John Radcliffe Hospital was the least likely of the 11 to meet all of the quality standards needed. The hospital today described the decision as "disappointing". In a statement posted on its website, a spokesman said: "This is very disappointing news for Oxford.
"The John Radcliffe Hospital is one of the smallest centres in the country, but we had hoped that the Safe and Sustainable team would recognise the potential that Oxford has in terms of geographical location and the presence of other connected clinical services on site."
Children's heart surgery was suspended at the unit, the smallest in England, in March after four babies died under the care of surgeon Caner Salih. An investigation carried out by the South Central strategic health authority published a report on the deaths in July and concluded Mr Saligh was not to blame, but highlighted issues within the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals (ORH) NHS Trust, including a lack of preparation for his arrival.
The spokesman continued: "The ORH board will now wish to consider the implications of this recommendation and will want to continue discussions with the Safe and Sustainable team about the future of specialist children's heart services.
"We know our patients, their families and our staff will be very disappointed at this news and hope they will continue to participate in shaping the future of children's cardiac services when the formal consultation begins in the new year."
Andrew Stevens, director of planning and information at the hospital trust, said: "Oxford is one of the smallest centres and the main thrust of the Safe and Sustainable review is that there should be fewer, larger paediatric cardiac surgery centres in the future. It is perhaps therefore not surprising that Oxford was felt to have the highest mountain to climb."
Just 120 or so operations a year were carried out at the unit each year. An inquest into the death of one of the babies, Natalie Lo, who died aged 23 days, is to be held in Oxford at the end of the month.
A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "The Safe and Sustainable review has made an interim recommendation that potential configuration options for surgery should not include John Radcliffe Hospital. "Children's cardiac surgery can be very complex and often involves very sick children. The Safe and Sustainable review of children's cardiac services was commissioned to ensure that services are fit for the future. "We want to make sure that children have the best possible outcomes and that parents can choose the best care for their child.
"No final decision will be made on the future of the children's heart surgery service at the John Radcliffe Hospital until the outcome of a full public consultation is known in 2011. "Local parents, NHS staff and the public will have the opportunity to make their views known during the consultation process."
The Oxford centre will continue to provide specialised cardiology services for children, carrying out assessment work and ongoing care, but not surgery.
Decade-long immigration boom means Britain needs 550,000 extra school places by 2016
Britain will need 550,000 more school places by 2016 to educate the children of immigrants, a study claimed last night. And over the next decade this will rise to one million extra places – at a total cost of about £100billion.
The Migrationwatch report blames the aftermath of Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration policy. Last year, providing schooling to the children of people born overseas cost £4.5billion – the equivalent of almost £13million every day – according to the pressure group. Its analysis is based on figures from the Office for National Statistics, and includes children who have arrived in the UK from overseas, and those born in Britain to migrant parents.
It comes at a time when primary school places are in huge demand, and the Government is attempting to slash between £7 billion and £14 billion from the education budget.
Migrationwatch said that between 1998 and 2009 – the years in which critics say Labour’s open door immigration policy operated – the number of school places required by the children of immigrants was almost 630,000.
By analysing ONS population projections, Migrationwatch also concluded that over the next ten years one million more school places will be needed because of immigration. This is primarily due to children being born to immigrants.
Between now and 2016, 550,000 more places will be required. Based on the cost of providing each school place, the total cost will be £40billion. Educating children of immigrants in state schools would cost around £195billion over a 25-year period, the report adds.
Migrationwatch said the quadrupling in net migration – the difference between the number of people arriving in the UK, and those leaving – was responsible. Many of those coming here were young people, who decided to have children, contributing to a ‘baby boom’. Between 1998 and 2009, total births increased by 11 per cent, Migrationwatch says.
Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman, said: ‘Almost every family in England is being affected by the growing crisis over school places but no one will talk about its causes. ‘These are some of the consequences of one of the most reckless and unpopular policies of any government in generations and they are now coming home to roost.’
Last month, the Mail revealed how hundreds of children had been left with no primary school place at the start of term. Thousands of other children are having to be taught in makeshift classrooms.
The problems were blamed on the surge in the number of young children and recession-fuelled departures from private schools.
The Coalition has acknowledged that the shortage of primary places is ‘critical’. Last night a Government spokesman said: ‘Ministers are clear that dealing with the demand for school places is an immediate priority – that is why we are transforming the school building programme to meet demand where it is most needed. ‘We are fully committed to reducing net migration back down to the tens of thousands [a year] rather than the hundreds of thousands.’
BRITAIN announced Thursday that it is resuming deportations to Zimbabwe after ministers decided that “the political situation is relatively stable and the humanitarian situation has greatly improved” since President Robert Mugabe agreed to share power with his opposition rivals in February last year.
Immigration lawyers said the announcement came as a surprise given that a tribunal is sitting later this month to set a new country guidance case for Zimbabwe.
The move also came just under a month after a minister told parliament Britain was “not starting enforced returns yet by any means” to Zimbabwe.
“It’s difficult to understand the logic of the ministers in putting the cart before the horse by amending the policy now and putting unnecessary political pressure on the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal judges,” immigration solicitor Yvonne Gwashawanhu said in London.
She added: “The Upper Tier Tribunal has listed before it the Zimbabwean country guidance case for hearing shortly and it is difficult to see how the judges can be expected to ignore this latest development. “Needless to say, there will now be a flurry of activity within the Zimbabwean community in the UK.”
Matthew Coats, the UK Border Agency’s head of immigration said enforced removals would resume after the country guidance case judgement is handed down, which lawyers expect to happen before Christmas.
Coats said: “When we do recommence enforced removals, they will be taken forward in a carefully planned and phased way. “We take our international responsibilities seriously and we will continue to grant protection to those Zimbabweans that need it. However, it is essential that we maintain the principle that each application for protection is considered on its individual merits and that returns are taken forward on a similar basis. “The courts have found that not all Zimbabweans are in need of international protection.”
The UK Border Agency sent a research team to Zimbabwe in August to track down asylum seekers who returned voluntarily and also conduct interviews with human rights groups about potential safety risks for returnees.
The fact finding team released its report two weeks ago, and lawyer Gwashawanhu described its findings as “one-sided” and accused the team of “asking leading questions calculated to produce a desired response.” Human rights groups say an election planned for next year could see a new flare-up of political violence.
Britain suspended forced removals to Zimbabwe in 2005 due to a political crisis engulfing the country at the time.
In 2008, Home Office figures showed there were 7,500 failed asylum seekers living in Britain.
As career criminals with 100 convictions are spared jail in Britain, MPs ask... What DOES get you locked up?
Thousands of career criminals are being spared jail despite having amassed at least 50 convictions. Almost 2,700 were handed a community sentence after being found guilty more than 50 times before. Incredibly, 315 offenders even received a non-custodial punishment after 100 or more previous offences.
The figures, seen by the Mail, also show more than 13,000 on at least their 30th offence received a community penalty – widely derided as ‘soft’ by critics. It means offenders who are convicted of 30 or more crimes are 1,000 times more likely to be given a community sentence or a fine than end up in prison.
MPs and experts said the alarming revelations showed why Kenneth Clarke should be imprisoning more convicts – not fewer. Criminologist Dr David Green, director of the Civitas think-tank, said even more prolific offenders could escape jail in future. ‘It’s all very well giving out community sentences for minor offences – but if you’re on your 101st conviction, then it’s evidence of being a career criminal,’ he added. ‘I would have thought a long custodial sentence would be appropriate for these people, who will have been committing crimes more or less every day for all their adult life. If they do allow career criminals to roam the streets, we can safely say there will be a rise in crime.’
Tory backbencher Philip Davies said: ‘These statistics show what a joke the criminal justice system has become. You have to work very hard to get into prison nowadays. ‘No wonder people have lost faith in the criminal justice system when we see people carrying out literally hundreds of crimes and getting off time and time again.’
But the Justice Secretary yesterday remained defiant over his plans to hand out community punishments rather than short jail terms. He said: ‘Simply banging up more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change them is not going to protect the public. I do not think prison is or should be a numbers game’.
The re-offending figures, which are for 2008, were revealed last week by Justice Minister Crispin Blunt following a parliamentary question. They show that the problem of repeat offending has been getting worse. In 2006, a total of 179 criminals were spared jail after 100 convictions – not much more than half of the 315 figure in 2008. And whereas in 2002 a total of 1,200 had 50 or more convictions, that had soared to 2,670 in 2008.
Some of the figures were published earlier this year, buried in an annex of a document of sentencing statistics. The Ministry of Justice document reveals that repeat offending is getting worse. The proportion of sentences given to offenders with 15 or more previous convictions or cautions has risen from 17 per cent in 2000 to 28 per cent in 2008.
Graham Jones, the Labour MP who asked the question, said: ‘These figures seem to show that the “prison doesn’t work” idea put forward by the Conservatives is wrong.’
Despite how hard it has become to earn a custodial sentence, Mr Clarke is still insisting there are too many convicts sent to jail for six months or less. He wants to replace these sentences – given to around 50,000 offenders each year – with ‘tougher community’ penalties.
Yesterday, he said: ‘The army of short term prisoners we have at the moment, who have a particularly bad record of re-offending within six months of being released, is too big and we’ve got to find some sensible community sentences.’
Governors say it will slash jail numbers by 7,000 at any one time – with some prisons closing because there are too few inmates.
The vast majority of those convicted of a range of offences are have been convicted of the same crime before.
Mr Clarke provoked anger among the Tory grassroots earlier this year by declaring that prison ‘doesn’t work’ – ripping up almost 20 years of party policy. But he has stuck doggedly to the position that short-jail sentences are ‘ineffective’ and ‘absurd’. He says that – with 60 per cent of jailed inmates re-offending on release – the system must be changed.
The government is carrying out a sentencing review, which is due to report back within weeks. It will rule out scrapping short sentences altogether. But community punishments are likely to be toughened by making offenders wear an electronic tag. Officials hope this will persuade magistrates to use the punishment instead of jail.
In yesterday’s speech to the Prison Governors Association, Mr Clarke reiterated his plan to encourage inmates to work a 40-hour week, in return for the minimum wage. He also said he wanted to modern versions of Victorian prisons with a new focus on hard work and discipline.
He also said he wanted an ‘intensive effort to start developing drug-free wings’ in prisons, getting inmates off drugs altogether, and wanted regimes which prepared prisoners for an ‘ordinary honest life outside’.
Only this week, we heard that judges and magistrates are being told to send fewer violent thugs to prison. Now those found guilty of actual, or even grievous, bodily harm will not be going to prison at all, particularly if they are young or express remorse.
Makes you wonder who we’ll be letting off next? Rapists? Murderers?
Ken Clarke, our new Justice Secretary, may have come to the highly convenient, money-saving conclusion that prison sentences do not reduce crime – which I don’t believe – but I’m more inclined to side with former Home Secretary Michael Howard and his famous ‘prison works’ speech.
It addressed the problems of criminals and criminality in a way that the latest milksop, so-called ‘community payback’, never will. A couple of weeks loafing around in high-visibility jackets? Oh yes, I’m quite sure that will get hardened criminals back on the straight and narrow, Mr Clarke.
At the grassroots level, the judicial system is a currently a mess, where something as serious as shoplifting can earn you an £80 fixed penalty fine, while dropping a cigarette butt can land you with a £1,000 fine.
It’s a world where the police keep telling us that crime is falling but only, I’m convinced, because they’re letting repeat young offenders off with warning after warning, caution after caution.
Sometimes I wonder why they don’t just raise the age of criminal responsibility to 20 and solve the whole problem of youth crime overnight.
Save us from red tape, beg British local councils: Labour issued 74,000 pages of rules in a decade
Local government bureaucrats have had to follow 74,000 pages of new rules and instructions handed down by Whitehall over the past decade, council chiefs complained yesterday. The forest of red tape was a product of 4,000 different laws and circulars covering everything from parish council election advice to carbon reduction targets.
The direct cost to taxpayers of demands sent down by ministers to town halls amounts to £900 million a year and the overall losses could be as high as £2.5 billion annually, the Local Government Association said. It demanded simplification of the rules that govern local councils and an end to central government guidelines that give detailed instructions on how town halls should carry out their duties.
According to a report published by the umbrella body for local councils, the burden has amounted to 40 pages of regulation for every day that Parliament has been sitting since 2000. The rules include 2,000 pages of planning guidance issued by John Prescott and other Labour ministers to try to impose national policies on housebuilding, development in green fields, and traveller sites.
There were 1,300 pages sent out last year in one manual from the Department of Work and Pensions instructing local officials how to pay out Housing Benefit.
And targets issued by the Communities Department in 2008 required town halls to increase the number of new businesses started in their area, cut the re-offending rates of local criminals, and get more people to stop smoking.
Even since May and the arrival of the Coalition government, councils have been given 1,355 pages of rules thanks to 67 new laws which have come into effect.
The page count produced a plea for mercy from LGA chairman Baroness Margaret Eaton. She said: ‘An avalanche of paperwork has descended on town halls across the country in the past decade. ‘There is no justification for the amount of form-filling, data returns, reviews and micromanagement being foisted on local government.
Red tape of this kind wastes valuable time and resources which councils need to spend delivering services.’
The Association appealed for instructions to councils on how to carry out their legal duties to be scrapped, for consolidation of local government laws into a simplified codebook, and for an end to demands for statistics and information on whether targets have been reached.
Lady Eaton said: ‘Councils are well aware of their responsiblities towards their residents. What they need are the freedoms which will allow them to make the money go further and do more for everyone.’
Ministers yesterday announced one cutback on red-tape with the withdrawal of 4,700 Whitehall targets set under the regulations on ‘Local Area Agreements’.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles also said central government demands for information would be simplified. He said: ‘National targets tend to mean that councils are constantly working on things which matter to Whitehall, regardless of what local residents think. I’d much rather councils were tackling local issues.
The money being spent on form fillers and bean counters could be far better spent helping elderly people to stay in their homes.’
Mixed ability classes may be fuelling bad behaviour in [British] schools, MPs have been warned. Tom Burkard, research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies, said slower pupils became frustrated after being left behind by brighter classmates.
Addressing the Commons Education Select Committee, he warned that large numbers of children found lessons “totally and utterly meaningless” when they were pitched at the wrong level.
Mr Burkard, a former special needs teacher, told how the majority of truants skipped school because they dreaded lessons “they didn’t like or a teacher they couldn’t stand”.
Psychologists also told MPs that indiscipline was being caused by aggressive behaviour among adults who acted as poor role models for young children.
The comments were made as part of a new select committee inquiry into standards of behaviour in state schools – and tactics employed to promote discipline in the classroom.
According to official figures, behaviour is still not good enough in more than a fifth of secondary schools in England. At least 700 state comprehensives are failing to keep order to a high standard, it was revealed.
Mr Burkard said mixed lessons – in which staff are forced to teach children with a range of academic abilities – were contributing to the problem. Around half of all lessons in schools are in mixed ability groups, with children normally segregated only in a small number of academic subjects.
Mr Burkard said children at the lower end of the ability range or those diagnosed with special needs often had problems with "working memory" – the process of putting words into sentences, taking in information and forming conclusions. “If you don’t have this ability and you are sat in a mixed ability class, which is relying to a large extent on your own investigations, you are going to find the whole procedure totally and utterly meaningless," he said.
“If you are lucky, the child will sit at the back of the class and do very little. If not, they are going to act up. This is one of the things we have to take into consideration.”
He said a drive – launched under Labour – to tailor education to individual children’s needs was “an absolute fantasy” because teachers did not have enough time.
However, Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, rejected the claims. The union leader - former head of English at a north London comprehensive - told how mixed ability classes worked well in her former school while behaviour in the bottom sets was "appalling".
In evidence to MPs, others educationalists said parents were undermining schools' attempts to instill discipline in the classroom. Many children copied behaviour they saw at home or on the street, it was claimed.
David Moore, an education consultant and former senior Ofsted inspector, told the hearing: "If you go into any shopping area on a Saturday and you watch parents interacting with their youngsters you can see why the youngsters behave the way that they do, because they model the behaviour of the adults."
Kate Fallon, general secretary of the Association of Educational Psychologists, said “less automatic respect” for people in authority may be to blame.
“I suspect we would see behaviours not terribly away far from here that might be described as low-level disruption, people talking over one another, interrupting, not always showing respect for the other speaker,” she said.
“So I think we can't say it's just children's behaviour. We actually have to look at it in context of the behaviour we see around us, lots of emoting, road rage - it's all there and it's not children's fault those things occur.”
Ryanair is an Irish budget carrier that operates many services out of Britain:
"A website set up to criticise Ryanair has been shut down by an internet watchdog – because it proved so popular it earned its owner money. The founder of IHateRyanair.co.uk – whose strapline was ‘The World’s Most Hated Airline’ – was forced to surrender the web address after the budget carrier complained to the domain name dispute resolution service.
Yesterday the watchdog, called Nominet, ruled that the stinging criticism and passenger ‘horror stories’ published on the site were not sufficient grounds for it to be scrapped. However it ruled that a small profit made by Robert Tyler from sponsored links on the site meant he abused domain name rules.
Disgruntled passengers’ comments have filled the pages of the website since it was set up three years ago by Mr Tyler, of Walthamstow, East London.
Weird: Criticism is not allowed if you make money out of it! A lot of blogs do a lot of criticizing and also have advertising on them. Are they in trouble? Thus is just a weak excuse to shut down criticism of a very arrogant business.
14 October, 2010
Mothers forced to give birth in NHS hospital waiting room where there was 'insufficient space to care for them'
Women are being forced to give birth in a hospital waiting room because there are not enough beds in overstretched maternity units. Expectant mothers are going through one of the most agonising ordeals of their lives in a crowded seating area, while other patients look on.
Campaigners last night warned that such an appalling standard of care is putting the health of women and their babies at risk.
King’s College Hospital, in South London, has admitted that mothers ‘regularly’ go into labour in the maternity unit’s waiting room as there are not enough beds. Managers said the department is often so full that some women have their babies in the seating area – with nothing more than a temporary screen to protect their privacy. The hospital admits the unit is severely overstretched and there are not enough beds to cope with the increasing birth rate of the catchment area.
But critics warn that the dire situation will soon be commonplace up and down the country as increasing numbers of hospitals close their maternity units to save money.
In an internal report, managers at King’s College Hospital state: ‘Increasing demand for use of the maternity services at King’s has resulted in there being insufficient space to care for all women appropriately when giving birth and accessing care. ‘Women are labouring in the waiting room on a regular basis while waiting for a labour room, sometimes giving birth inappropriately before this area is free.’
The document also reveals that in the past three months there had been 40 serious incidents at the hospital’s maternity ward because there were not enough beds or staff. The hospital would not provide details of the individual cases but at worst they can involve the baby being seriously hurt during the birth, or even dying.
Earlier this week it emerged that at least seven NHS trusts were planning to close or restrict their maternity units, which will mean nearby departments will become increasingly overstretched. Geoff Martin, the chairman of London Health Emergency, which campaigns against hospital cuts said: ‘It is clear from this problem at King’s that we don’t have enough capacity for women in labour as it is. ‘The problem will only get worse when more units close.’
One mother, who did not wish to be named, said she had narrowly avoided giving birth in the maternity unit’s waiting room because her labour was longer than expected. She said: ‘It was ridiculous. I was kept waiting for hours, but luckily it was a long labour, so eventually I managed to get a place on the labour ward in time for the birth.’
A spokesman for the hospital said: ‘Like many other hospitals, our maternity unit is very busy – we deliver 6,000 babies every year. ‘On very rare occasions, when women attended the unit in the very final stages of labour, they had to give birth in the waiting area because all the delivery rooms were full.’
Dying patient sent on three-hour taxi journey with no oxygen after blunder by NHS staff
A dying cancer patient was sent 80 miles by taxi after a blunder by NHS staff, it was revealed today. The 62-year-old man was sent between hospitals by cab - without oxygen or medical care on the three-hour journey. An inquiry revealed the patient was unable to have the treatment when he eventually arrived at the second hospital - and he died a few days later.
Health watchdog Peter Tyndall said: 'Unfortunately, his cancer was terminal - he hadn't long to live. 'What should properly have happened is that he should have been made as comfortable as possible for his last few days. The whole episode was badly managed.'
An investigation revealed NHS staff later tried to cover up the blunder by faking official records - falsely claiming the man's wife had agreed to go with him. Health officials were today ordered to apologise over the scandal.
Mr Tyndall, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, said the patient suffered from lung cancer and brain tumours which left him confused. He was being moved to a larger hospital to undergo radiotherapy but was too ill to have the treatment. The patient died within days of his transfer from Bronglais Hospital in Aberystwyth to Singleton Hospital in Swansea.
The investigation found he was not properly assessed to discover if he had the mental capacity to agree to the transfer.
The ombudsman said there was no evidence to show the man was judged safe to travel alone - and that record keeping was "substandard", with documents "poorly completed" by staff.
The investigation found that a ward sister had falsified an entry into the patient's medical records more than a year after he had died. Mr Tyndall said: 'This was a deliberate attempt to mislead and obstruct his investigation.' The nurse, who has not been named, is facing disciplinary proceedings from the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
A Hywel Dda Health Board spokesman said: 'We very much regret the failings identified by the ombudsman, both in relation to the complaint and the conduct of a member of staff during the investigation. 'The health board has now put in place procedures and plans to avoid a similar recurrence of the issues identified.
'A letter of apology will be forwarded to the family, with an assurance the ombudsman's recommendations have been taken seriously and that an action plan has been developed to address them.'
Why would ANY country try to keep out highly skilled workers while consciously letting untold numbers of illegals live there?
The government's interim immigration cap has left one of the UK's major research universities able to recruit or keep only 78 "skilled" overseas academics this year - and the permanent cap could bring further reductions.
The UK Border Agency has given each university a quota on recruitment from non-European Union countries under Tier 2 of the points-based immigration system, which covers "skilled workers". The quotas cover new visas - and renewals for existing staff - between 19 July 2010 and 31 March 2011, when the permanent cap will be imposed.
University College London, which has more than 4,000 staff, said it had been allowed just 78 places under the interim cap.
Universities are trying to bridge the gap by recruiting under Tier 1, which covers "highly skilled workers". In this category, however, the skills threshold is higher and the number of visas allocated is subject to a monthly national cap.
The UKBA's consultation on the permanent cap, which closed last month, has caused concern among universities by suggesting that Tier 2 visas could be closed to them.
The consultation document notes that there is a "strong case" for granting Tier 2 visas only to migrants with skills that are in "national shortage". This could have disastrous implications for universities because academics are not currently on the National Shortage Occupation List.
Universities UK voiced the sector's concerns in the consultation.
Many institutions believe that the UKBA has failed to appreciate that academic careers are inherently international and that the lengthy training period for new entrants means universities cannot rapidly switch to a "British-only" policy.
The universities of Oxford and Cambridge would not comment on their exact allocations.
But a Cambridge spokeswoman said: "The government's current visa-quota proposals threaten our ability to recruit both the academic leaders of today and the exceptional young talent from which will grow the Nobel prizewinners of tomorrow."
How to make immigration work in Britain's interests
Irwin Stelzer talks economic sense below. His recipe would apply to other Western countries too
From France (deport Romas), to Germany (preserve national identity), to Sweden (xenophobes win seats), to the Netherlands (no more burqas), an anti-immigration tide is sweeping across Europe. Britain is no exception; permanent restrictions on immigration are inevitable. But it would be a pity if they deny companies the skilled workers they need to remain competitive in a globalised world.
Britain can do little to reduce the flow of immigrants from the other 26 EU member states. In future it will be able to do even less if Bulgaria goes through with its plan to issue 500,000 passports to citizens of non-member countries; and if the new EU rule that guarantees immigrants the right to all welfare benefits accorded to native populations proves a magnet for immigrants.
Work visas for non-EU immigrants are now subject to a temporary cap that has left affected firms threatening to move where the skilled workers are. Employers are right. Restrictions on the numbers of would-be workers cut into their bottom lines, put pressure on them to train British citizens to do these jobs – often costly – and probably reduces national wealth.
Native workers are also right. In many cases immigrants take "their jobs" or, at minimum, place downward pressure on wages.
And residents of towns in which immigrants cluster are also right. Their culture is threatened as strange sounds and smells dominate once-familiar streets, and the burdens on the social services are increased.
The Government is desperate to satisfy all parties. So it has called in the bureaucrats to decide which immigrants should be admitted. It should instead concentrate on how to get the winners to share some of their increased profits with the losers who bear the costs.
Immigrants possess skills that are in short supply here, and add billions of pounds to national output. But a system that calls on bureaucrats to award points to workers with skills the bureaucrats decide are most needed is bound to get things wrong. There is a more efficient and fairer way.
Employers and immigrants strike wage deals that leave out of the equation the costs to society. Schools are more crowded, demands on the NHS increase, in some cases policing costs rise, incentives to train native workers fall. Economists call these "externalities" – costs created but not borne by the parties to a transaction.
The government can put these costs where they belong – on the firms and workers who benefit – and make sure that each visa adds to national wealth. How so? By requiring employers to bid for the limited number of entry permits, the proceeds to be remitted to the communities on which the immigrant imposes costs, or to HM Treasury. The employer will pay the full cost of the immigration, perhaps making up some of that cost by offering the immigrant a lower wage – which will reduce the demand for entry.
Like other market-based solutions, this is adjustable: if bidding for permits gets outrageously high, the government can increase their number.
Of course, other things need doing. Britain could refuse entry to anyone with a passport from Bulgaria, and fight it out before Europe's courts. After all, the EU has merely wrinkled its nose at France flaunting its treaty obligations. Britain can also really, really defend its borders. The government can put any applicant for entry at Heathrow with no papers back on a plane to wherever he had embarked on his journey. It can immediately deport any illegals it rounds up, and if the country of origin refuses to take them back, send them to a willing country, perhaps for a fee. Such a policy would reduce the number of illegals trying to sneak into Britain.
So, a limit on immigrants, border control, auctioning of permits. All are ingredients of a sensible policy that would add to national wealth. Innocent bystanders in communities now bearing the social and economic costs would be compensated, rather than forced to subsidise the large companies that are the major importers of labour.
Imperfect solution? Sure. But before dismissing it, consider this. Economists Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, in their new book Beside the Golden Door, suggest an initial minimum price, which would fluctuate according to demand, of $10,000 for a high-skill permit to work in the US. If British companies really need those foreign workers, a price anything like that would net the Treasury £350 million for 50,000 permits. And the nation the workers it most needs.
Climate change sceptics are likely to be given greater prominence in BBC documentaries and news bulletins following new editorial guidelines that call for impartiality in the corporation's science coverage.
The BBC has been repeatedly accused of bias in its reporting of climate change issues. Last year one of its reporters, Paul Hudson, was criticised for not reporting on some of the highly controversial "Climategate" leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, even though he had been in possession of them for some time.
Climate change sceptics have also accused the BBC of not properly reporting "Glaciergate", when a study from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saying that glaciers would melt by 2035 was discredited.
But the BBC's new editorial guidelines, published yesterday after an extensive consultation that considered over 1,600 submissions by members of the public, say expressly for the first time that scientific issues fall within the corporation's obligation to be impartial.
"The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected," said BBC trustee Alison Hastings.
"In addition the new guideline extends the definition of `controversial' subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters."
However James Delingpole, a prominent climate change sceptic, yesterday said that he predicted little movement in the BBC's environmental stories.
"It's highly unlikely that they'll be more balanced in their coverage," he said.
"It's a whole cultural thing at the BBC - that people who don't believe are just `flat earthers'. Whenever they invite dissenters like me on to debates, they surround us with `warmists'. On Any Questions, for example, Jonathan Dimbleby does his best to be impartial, but this is a man with a wind turbine in his garden."
In 2007, a BBC Trust report called Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century said: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular . The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC's role to close down this debate."
The BBC Trust is also currently conducting a separate review into impartiality in the corporation's science coverage, led by Professor Steve Jones from University College London, which will report in the spring of next year.
Professor Jones has been asked to consider whether the BBC's output "gives appropriate weight to scientific conclusions including different theories and due weight to the views expressed by those sceptical about the science and how it was conducted or evaluated."
A few days ago I had the rare pleasure of listening to quite possibly the most revoltingly parti pris, cloying, wrongheaded, disgraceful and thrillingly, collectably awful radio programme since the days of Lord Haw Haw. It was on ABC – Australia’s answer to the BBC: you can read the transcript here – and purported to present a reasonable and balanced view on Climate Change, courtesy of an “expert” named Bob Ward.
Bob Who? Well indeed. If you were to judge only by the sycophantic treatment he received at the hands of interviewer Robyn Williams (someone so instantly irritating he makes the other, more famous irritating Robin Williams seem an unparalleled delight of charm and understatement, by comparison), you would imagine he were some sort of cross between Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, plus maybe a bit of Svante Arrhenius and Joseph Fourier for the specialist Climate Change bits.
Actually, though, Bob Ward is a PR man. He used to work for the Royal Society, from which Warmist redoubt he once famously had the chutzpah to write to Exxon ordering them to stop funding “climate change deniers”. Now he works for something called the Grantham Research Institute, a “research department” at the London School of Economics (LSE) funded by an American hedge-funder called Jeremy Grantham and headed by the economist and former treasury official Lord Stern.
Grantham is, of course, a passionate believer in the green orthodoxy. He has made his money and if he wants to put some of it into an organisation promoting belief in the AGW religion then that’s his prerogative. But let’s not delude ourselves that the Grantham Institute is exactly a neutral source of information on this issue. Taking its lead from Lord Stern’s (tragically flawed) report, it is committed to the ideological position that man-made “Climate Change” represents a major, immediate threat which must be dealt with urgently through costly intervention. There is not much tolerance for “climate scepticism”, let alone “denial” at the Grantham Institute.
Which is why it came as rather a surprise to many ABC listeners to hear the Grantham Institute’s angry baldie attack dog Bob Ward being feted like the ultimate arbiter of neutral authority. Among them was Tom Harris, who eviscerates both Ward and Robyn Williams here in this magnificent Fisking of the fawning interview.
And when Ward asserts that dangerous global warming is "the kinda [sic] thing that I think most people would not want to risk if there is a cost effective solution to reducing emissions", why didn't Williams ask Ward what such "a cost effective solution" would be? Is it perhaps because no one can complete a meaningful cost/benefit analysis when future climate states are even less understood than the economic and social impacts of both climate change or energy rationing due to the sort of greenhouse gas controls Ward promotes? Ward's statement is also self-evident - no one would oppose eliminating risk, no matter how small, in any field if a "cost effective solution" could be found. But then to formulate such a solution we first need to know accurately the balance of cost and benefit - which, for climate change, we do not.
Next, Ward attributes nonsense to climate skeptics:
Anybody who seriously argues that carbon dioxide and methane are not greenhouse gases; that increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere doesn't warm the world; I mean they're basically fighting against 200 years worth of science..
and....
Now, you've got to be very, very blinkered in your view if you are saying "I know for sure there will be no increase in temperature and there's no risk."
Why didn't Williams ask Ward to tell the listening audience who has made these sorts of absolute statements? Is it because no one actually has? Certainly, Ward's primary targets for vilification in the interview, Professors Carter, Lindzen and Plimer, never have. Even with his relatively weak science background, Ward must know that.
Ward's conclusion is classic:
… what's worrying about this is they [climate skeptics] are creating confusion at a time when we have to make very serious decisions because the climate responds slowly to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and actually the decisions we gonna [sic] make today about emissions are about what kind of climate we'll see 20, 30 years from now and has very large implications if we make the wrong decisions.
Given Ward's overconfidence about a science that he admits is grossly uncertain, Williams should have jumped at the chance to ask him an obvious question, which is:
Since the impacts of major greenhouse gas decisions are delayed for decades, shouldn't we take the time to carefully consider what leading experts such as Carter, Plimer and Lindzen are saying? Why rush decisions when the consequences of being wrong are so high? Either we are headed towards climate catastrophe or we are on the verge of wasting trillions of dollars worldwide on a non-issue. Either way, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to perform due diligence on the issue before making any decisions at all.
Harris’s demolition is well worth reading in full. What I personally found most amusing about the interview was its arrant hypocrisy. Here is Ward’s dismissive verdict on “sceptics”:
…They write newspaper articles and go and appear on the media because what they are really interested in is influencing public debate rather than debating the intellectual basis of their objections.
But isn’t this exactly what Bob Ward does all the ruddy time, popping up like a bad smell on TV and radio whenever a rentaquote spokesman is needed to talk about ‘Climate Change’? He’s a PR man, let us remind ourselves, not a scientist (although he can claim an unfinished PhD thesis in Palaeopiezometry).
His job – for which he no doubt receives a salary a heck of a sight bigger than any of his “denier” oppos, like me – is by its very nature about swaying public opinion using traditional PR techniques like exaggeration, blustering and economy with the actualite. It’s not like Ward-y spends his days poring over radiosonde data or measuring ice caps or poking around in polar bear poo. He’s a hatchet man. He’s quite good at it.
That’s probably why they chose him. Because he looks a bit like an angry pit bull and he’s quite a scary thing to confront when you’re up against him in a debate, trying to get awkward scientific truths across like the fact that Global Warming hasn’t actually happened since 1998.
Bob Ward is not afraid to play dirty. One of his favourite tricks is to deploy the Press Complaints Commission weapon. He has inflicted this torture device more than once on Christopher Booker, reporting him for some doubtful inaccuracy or other which the PCC almost certainly won’t have either the intellect or the ideological neutrality to judge fairly, but which will result in his unfortunate victim being tied up for days answering pointless questions about tiny details for the PCC’s kangaroo court. If you see him try it on me, you’ll know why.
For further stories about Bob Ward in action, read Bishop Hill – another victim of Ward’s vicious campaigning – here, here, here. The Bishop also rightly condemns Ward’s disgraceful – and quite possibly actionable – assault on the distinguished and thoroughly decent Professor Bob Carter on the abovementioned ABC radio suck-up.
Roger Pielke Jr, meanwhile, has an amusing story about the Grantham Institute’s pathetic inability to provide anyone – other than the inevitable Bob – to debate with him on his visit to London next month.
Here is my view — If the Grantham Institute insists on having Bob Ward going around in blogs and in the media seeking to criticize my work — as he did on the disaster issue and has done so more recently — then they have an obligation to come out from behind him to actually engage in intellectual debate. The alternative would be to inform Mr. Ward that they do not wish to back up his various attacks.
I understand that people are busy. So I have offered up two weeks worth of dates for the Grantham folks to find a single faculty member to defend Ward’s frequent attacks on their behalf. Apparently they can not or will not put someone up. (And it does indeed have to be a faculty member. I have debated Mr. Ward before and, not surprisingly, he was unprepared to actually debate. So I won’t repeat that experience again.)
Since the Grantham Institute folks have been given the opportunity to debate issues openly and in public, I will be very surprised to see Bob Ward rejoining his attacks on me in blogs and in the media. That would be pretty uncool. The offer of a public exchange, which I am sure would be of wide interest, will remain open to those hiding behind Mr. Ward.
This is far, far more than I ever wanted to write about Bob Ward and I promise never to sully my typing fingers in this way ever again. Why did I do so? Simple. Because as we approach endgame in the great Climate Change Pseudoscience Fraud, people will understandably want to know how this massive con trick was able to penetrate so deep into the public psyche.
For the full disgraceful story you must wait for my forthcoming book Watermelons. In the meantime, let me offer the case of Bob Ward as an example of how the poison spread.
Let me make one thing clear: I’m not criticising Ward on the grounds that he is a PR man. He is as entitled to speak out on “Climate Change” as I – a mere Oxford Eng Lit grad blogger and hack – am. But note, pray, one key difference. If ever I am called to debate about climate change on the BBC or wherever I will always be introduced as a climate change “sceptic.” Ward, on the other hand, though as virulent an activist as anyone on my side of the debate, will be introduced as a spokesman for the Grantham Research Institute – thus lending him an aura of dignity, neutrality and lofty expertise he simply doesn’t merit.
The effect of this imbalance is distorting and dangerous. I have lost count of the number of environmental news reports in serious newspapers which quote Bob Ward as though he were THE ex-cathedra authority on all matters to do with “Climate Science.” Presumably, on the same grounds, every time there’s a meat recipe they should ring up for the views of Paul McCartney; and every time there’s a story about heroism in Afghanistan, they should court the vital opinion of Parliament Square “peace activist” Brian Hawes; and every time there’s a piece about the Pope they should ring up Ian Paisley. After all they’re just as reliable and just as unbiased.
Send fewer thugs to jail and save £20m a year, British judges and JPs told
Judges and magistrates were yesterday ordered to send fewer violent thugs to jail. New guidelines mean those guilty of grievous bodily harm or beating up a police officer will remain on the streets rather than going to prison.
And courts will be told to count the youth or remorse of an attacker as a mark in their favour, even though many assaults happen when pubs and clubs close and are committed by young people.
The Sentencing Council believes its move could save almost £20million a year to the prison and probation services and mean 4,000 fewer violent yobs being sent to jail.
But it provoked a storm of protest last night and comes against a political backdrop of Justice Secretary Ken Clarke declaring he wants to reduce sharply the number of short term jail sentences.
Lord Justice Leveson, who is chairman of the council, said judges and magistrates have been ‘ignoring’ guidelines and setting longer sentences for lesser assaults. Despite insisting that ‘none of us is soft on crime’, he was forced to deny the judges have acted in league with Mr Clarke, who is committed to sending fewer offenders to prison.
He added: ‘If this works, there will be less use of custody.’ But critics said the thinking behind the policy was ‘dubious’ and could create ‘more crime and more victims’.
Criminologist Dr David Green, of the Civitas think tank, said: ‘I do not believe that any experienced judge would think that current sentencing practice is disproportionate. ‘When you make the consequences of crime less severe, you will get more of it.’
The new rules would mean fewer jail sentences for common assault, assault on a police officer, causing actual bodily harm and assault trying to resist arrest.
For grievous bodily harm, an assault causing permanent disability, disfigurement, broken bones or injuries requiring lengthy treatment, attackers will not go to jail if they are considered to have factors in their favour. These include youth or immaturity, showing remorse, and causing the injury with a single blow.
The council’s guidelines were put out as a consultation and are likely to be given legal force next spring. Unlike previous sentencing rules handed down by predecessor bodies, they must be obeyed to the letter by judges and magistrates.
Lord Justice Leveson said: ‘What’s moving me is to get the system right, fair, proportionate and understandable.’ He added that there had been a ‘general trend towards longer sentences for all assault offences’ over the past ten years.
The guidelines could mean:
- Between 1,000 and 2,800 fewer offenders jailed each year for common assault.
- Between 300 and 900 fewer jailed each year for assault causing actual bodily harm.
- Between 200 and 700 fewer jailed each year for assault on a police officer.
- Between 15 and 50 fewer jailed each year for assault with intent to resist arrest.
- Between ten and 30 fewer jailed each year for causing grievous bodily harm.
‘There has been an increase in the severity of sentences at the lower end of the assault range and I think we’re trying to adjust that for reasons of proportionality, rather than anything else,’ he said. ‘I think there may be a slight increase at the very, very top, for the most serious offences of this type.’
Mr Clarke announced his policy of cutting down on numbers of criminals sent to prison in the summer. The aim, which disappointed many Tory MPs and voters, was to cut the 85,000 prison population and save the taxpayer money. Doubting that prison worked to cut crime, Mr Clarke said it cost £38,000 to keep someone in jail for a year, more than the fees to send a pupil to Eton.
His critics say that one major reason why crime has fallen in recent years is that judges and magistrates have chosen to send more offenders to jail, despite pressure from Labour politicians and from senior judges not to do so.
They also say that the cost of sending criminals to jail is small compared to the cost of the crimes they commit if they are left on the street to re-offend. The prison population has risen from around 55,000 in 1996 to about 85,000.
The Sentencing Council also hopes to reduce community sentences – including work details for offenders who may also be given curfews and electronic tags – and replace them in similar numbers by fines for lesser offenders.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the Government was committed to ensuring that penalties deter crime, protect the public, punish offenders and cut re-offending. [How?}
Beware falling acorns! Health and safety lunacy reaches new peak with warning sign
It is an autumnal hazard that mankind has successfully negotiated for millions of years. Not that you would know from the latest advice from hospital health and safety chiefs who reckon that, after all this time, we need a little help in dealing with the danger of acorns. As a result signs have been put up around an oak tree warning ‘Caution Please Be Aware Of The Falling Acorns’.
Staff at the Brentwood Community Hospital in Essex erected the sign after a patient stepped on an acorn last year and suffered a slight sprain to her ankle. Although the patient did not sue, gardeners have also now been ordered to collect fallen acorns in the hospital grounds.
Andrew McGowan, 28, who was visiting a patient yesterday, said: ‘It’s health and safety madness really. You don’t need a sign to warn you about things falling from the tree. It happens at this time of year and you can see acorns on the ground.’ tree
Details emerged days after visitors to a park in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, were warned of falling conkers with a sign that proclaimed: ‘Beware Falling Conkers – Please Proceed with Care.’
The Brentwood hospital yesterday defended the move, citing the slip last year. A spokesman added: ‘Our groundsmen now sweep acorns up and they have put the signs up just to be on the safe side.’
Britain's debate about how higher education should be funded assumes that its only value is economic. It is poor value for the taxpayers' money if that is so -- JR
How to fund British universities? It is a dismal question for a dismal debate. And it’s a question that has been recurring with depressing regularity ever since the New Labour government introduced the first top-up fees 12 years ago. Nothing seems to break the repetitive cycle of argument and counter-argument. Critics of spending cuts and/or raising tuition fees will declare that universities are vital: vital to the UK economy, vital to overcoming social inequality, vital to our collective future.
Supporters of spending cuts and/or raising tuition fees will argue that universities are not vital enough. The courses take too long; graduates are not sufficiently economically productive; and besides, the government has already spent too much on this collective future.
Unfortunately, the publication of Lord Browne’s university spending review today, commissioned under New Labour’s tenure, will not alter the narrow, almost entirely economic parameters of this debate around higher education. In fact, if the responses so far are any indication, it is more likely to intensify the economic focus of the discussion. Hence the substance of the reaction so far seems to be around whether to remove the upper limit on tuition fees currently set at £3,290 or to come up with some sort of interest rate on student loans tiered according to whatever a particular graduate subsequently earns. Edifying it is not.
The problem is that the value of higher education is conceived almost entirely from the perspective of economics. So from a social perspective, its ostensible purpose is to increase GDP; from an individual perspective it’s the guarantee – and justification for – a higher salary. Because of this, the argument for increasing the funding burden on students almost makes itself, as Boris Johnson clearly found on Monday: ‘It is hardly progressive that people on low incomes should pay in their taxes for the university education of students who will go on to earn about 40 per cent more than those with no qualifications’, he wrote in his Telegraph column.
To such an argument, Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, had little to offer other than a yelp of baby-doomer self-pity: ‘A generation who will already struggle over housing and pensions, as well as increased bills for health and social care, will be asked to pick up the tab for excesses they did not themselves enjoy and mistakes they did not make, by being forced to pay for spending cuts.’ Luckily, in keeping with the bean-counting tenor of the discussion, Porter did have one killer alternative to higher tuition fees and spending cuts in his armoury: ‘A sophisticated graduate tax system.’ A place at the Treasury beckons him.
But wait. A Guardian columnist dissents: ‘The graduate tax does have serious problems. It would have been in effect a new layer of income tax, in some ways progressive, in other ways not. It would mean different generations being taxed at different rates, and those who had “made it” without going to college being taxed at a lower rate. What message would that have sent? It would put quite a lot of ambitious people off going to university, or at least ensure they didn’t go to a British one.’
Underwriting this disagreement, however, is the same monetising view of education shared by parties as ostensibly in conflict as Boris Johnson and the quasi-radical NUS. They all assume that the point of higher education, the reason for studying, is better earnings, just as New Labour always assumed that the societal point of higher education was national wealth. Hence, in the proud words of the 2003 New Labour white paper, The Future of Higher Education, students are at university for the ‘acquisition of skills’. The point being that skills sell. In his first speech as secretary of state for education in 2007, Labour’s John Denham continued in this vein of justification: ‘To compete and prosper in this world, to respond to the needs of leading global and national businesses, we must enable many thousands more people to study and graduate each year. To become a world leader in skills, as Lord Leitch recommended, we must aim for at least 40 per cent of adults to have higher level qualifications by 2020.’
Little wonder that as the cuts bite, the solely economic justification for higher education has taken on a meaner hue. Hence, at the end of last year, we had then business secretary Lord Mandelson calling for cheaper, fast-track, two-year degrees instead of the conventional three. And earlier this month, current business secretary Vince Cable gave a speech arguing that only ‘commercially useful’ science degrees should be government-funded.
There is of course a big, gaping education-shaped hole at the heart of this debate, over which critics and supporters alike build ever-more torturous funding structures. That is, what is higher education for? If the only answer to that question is economic, then the current debate takes on a purely technical aspect: where to cut and upon whom to place the funding burden.
But there is an alternate, humanistic view of higher education that stretches from the recently beatified John Henry Newman, via Matthew Arnold, right up to the 1963 government-backed Robbins Report on giving more social classes the opportunity to study.
And it’s a view that conceives of education, of subject-centred learning and research, as a good in itself. As the Robbins committee wrote: ‘[The] search for truth is an essential function of the institutions of higher education, and the process of education is itself most vital when it partakes in the nature of discovery.’ Such arguments for higher education conceive its value in non-monetary terms. Its ends were not seen as extrinsic to education; they were intrinsic.
Of course one cannot simply resuscitate such ideals. The historical conditions – a sense of Britain as a world power, with a world mission – that enabled Matthew Arnold, for instance, to talk confidently of the universal importance of ‘the best which has been thought and said in the world’ are long gone. But right now, with the supporters of higher education parroting the same vacuous, bean-counting nonsense as its critics, there needs to at least be an attempt to address the purpose of education in terms other than those of the dismal science.
Scandal of Tony Blair's £31m flagship school: A leaking roof, broken designer toilets and a useless computer system
"Innovative" should always ring alarm bells
Funded by a Labour donor, opened by Tony Blair, built by modernist Norman Foster, Bexley Business Academy was one of the most high-profile symbols of New Labour’s education policy. And how they were happy to boast about it.
At the opening ceremony in 2003, Blair spoke of Bexley as ‘the future’ of state education, and Norman Foster’s website extolled a ‘visionary, light-filled school that would be democratic and flexible’.
Seven years on, the reality could not be more different. Bexley has been a vastly expensive nightmare as a building project, and as a school with a sprawling roster of 1,500 pupils has spent most of its short life in the academic emergency ward.
The litany of vastly costly problems is extensive: the roof leaks, the wireless IT systems didn’t work, the electric gates got stuck, the changing rooms were far too small, the designer toilets broke time and again, as did the heating system.
To cap it all, there is a nagging smell of sewage pervading the school, though that might just as easily be the stench of New Labour’s hubris given the way it trumpeted this project.
The school cost an astonishing £31 million to build — far more than any normal school of a similar size — as part of the £55 billion Building Schools for the Future programme that Michael Gove, the new Tory schools secretary, has closed down.
So money that could have been spent on a decent education for its pupils was wasted on a vanity building project, but even worse, a combination of what appear to be design defects and building failures have created a maintenance disaster zone that continue to drain away the school’s funds.
When it was designed, Foster boasted that the building had been carefully planned to keep heating costs low, and a self-congratulatory ‘assessment’ from the government’s architectural adviser concluded that ‘maintenance of the building’s different materials has been carefully considered in the design, and as such is mainly low level’.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. ‘It’s a hugely expensive building and costs us an absolute fortune,’ says Sam Elms, the school’s chief executive. ‘It’s a nightmare to run. If we could move to another building, we would.’
The finance director, meanwhile, has said: ‘We spend 9 per cent of our annual Government grant on premises. Given that our average spend on staff costs is more than 80 per cent, this clearly represents a high proportion of the remaining grant income and leaves little for other equally vital expenditure.’
In fact, as of last year, the academy employs a total of 234 staff, including 105 teachers, 74 classroom assistants and 36 management and administrative staff.
Leaked internal documents predict that the school faces a deficit of £859,000 by next year unless drastic cost-cutting takes place. So far, with seven people on its payroll earning more than £60,000 a year, this doesn’t seem to have taken place.
On the contrary, in addition to having a chief executive — paid more than £120,000 a year — it also has a so-called ‘executive principal’, Christina Moon. Mrs Moon’s main home is in Bristol, so in addition to her £120,000-a-year pay, she has also had a £20,000-a-year flat rented for her in Greenwich by the school. That’s on top of yet more ‘principals’, ‘vice-principals’ and ‘assistant principals’.
No wonder an education consultancy report, seen by the Times Education Supplement, said that the school suffered from ‘a lack of clarity about decision-making’, as well as ‘duplication and inefficiencies’.
So the building was an expensive disaster, and despite the high-profile involvement of Labour donor Sir David Garrard, in the end his charitable trust contributed less than 8 per cent of the cost of the school. The rest was met by the taxpayer.
And Sir David’s name proved to be a mixed blessing when he became involved in the Cash for Honours affair, with his peerage blocked after it emerged that he had lent several million pounds to the Labour Party in a way that allowed his name to be concealed.
Nor has (Lord) Norman Foster’s involvement done Bexley much good either. Despite being ennobled by Labour and appointed to the even more prestigious Order of Merit, Foster has quit his post in the House of Lords to maintain his non-domicile status as a resident of Switzerland.
It seems that while he may be prepared to spend other people’s money on so-called democratic schools, but he’d rather not contribute his own money towards funding them.
In Switzerland, Lord Foster lives with his third wife, Elena Ochoa, now Lady Foster of Thames Bank. In her native Spain, Lady Foster was best known as the presenter of Hablemos de Sexo — Let’s Talk About Sex — in which the doctora del sexo enlightened her compatriots on behaviour in the bedroom.
The academic results at Bexley, the school Lord Foster designed, have been mixed. Last year, only 40 per cent of the pupils passed five or more GCSEs of grade C or above (including Maths and English), which was better than the dismal 19 per cent two years ago, but still a poor performance for a so-called flagship academy.
Norman Foster and Tony Blair appear to have believed that smart school buildings would translate into good exam results. But in fact, as Professor Dylan Wiliam, former deputy director of the Institute of Education, says: ‘I know of no studies that show changing the environment has a direct impact on student achievement.’
In fact, an Ofsted inspection in 2005 found the Academy to be ‘inadequate’, and it was issued with a Notice to Improve, essentially a final demand from the Government that a school must get better quickly, or face being taken over by the Department of Education.
Since then, academic matters have improved, but not by much. The most recent Ofsted report, published this year, found that ‘the Academy is emerging from troubled times. ‘Since the last inspection, two principals have resigned from their post and the academy has had a period where there was no substantive head teacher of the primary phase’.
The current staff are clearly trying hard, but the shortcomings of the building they’ve been left with are obviously making life difficult for them.
Not much of a monument then, to a former prime minister who promised to make Education, Education, Education his top three priorities.
If you want to understand how it was possible for New Labour to double the schools budget in real terms without achieving an improvement in standards, look no further than Bexley.
It’s a monument to vanity policy making, and those councils currently wasting council taxpayers’ money suing Michael Gove for refusing to allow them to build their own educational white elephants should study Bexley — and think again.
Memory booster pill: Hope for elderly who suffer 'senior moments'
Good news if it works but the side effects could be a concern. Cortisol is a stress hormone so reducing it could lead to apathy, lethargy etc.
A pill that prevents so-called ‘senior moments’ is being developed by British doctors. Taken later in life, it could put an end to forgetting where the car keys are, or not being able to remember names.
The drug, which is aimed principally at absent-mindedness rather than brain diseases, has already been tested on animals. It could go to human trials next year and, if these are successful, be on the market within five years.
Jonathan Seckl, who led the research at Edinburgh University, said: ‘A third of older people have what is euphemistically called mild cognitive impairment. ‘But it is a major risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and it is also pretty frustrating if you can’t remember what you left the house to do or where you put your keys. ‘It is soul-destroying and memory clinics are full of patients who are deeply frustrated by being unable to remember things.’
Such problems are at least partially due to high levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, damaging the brain’s ‘memory hub’. Professor Seckl has shown that an enzyme called 11beta-HSD1 boosts levels of cortisol and he created the drug to stop that happening.
Known as UOE1961, it sharpened the minds of elderly mice to such an extent that they were as good as much younger creatures at performing tests of memory and learning. What is more, the animals were treated for only two weeks, the Journal of Neuroscience reports.
Professor Seckl, who was funded by the Wellcome Trust, said: ‘They were coming toward the end of their lifespan and had profound deficits in their ability to learn things. ‘We turned them back to being as good as young animals, which was very exciting. What that teaches us is that that sort of memory loss is not irreversible.’
It is too early to know what side-effects UOE1961 will have. But, on the plus side, reducing levels of stress hormones is likely to be good for the heart. It is thought the drug will work only on the ageing brain – meaning it will not help young people cram for exams.
"Must not criticize Muslims" is what it is really all about:
"Another new guideline, about religious coverage, says that “Any content dealing with matters of religion and likely to cause offence to those with religious views and beliefs must be editorially justified as judged against generally accepted standards and must be referred to a senior editorial figure.”
However Terry Sanderson, the president of the National Secular Society, said: “This is an entirely retrograde step that will put severe restrictions on comedians, documentary makers, satirists and commentators who want to be critical of religion. Almost anything that isn’t wholly reverential towards religious beliefs can be perceived as offensive by some believers.”
Man wrongly told by NHS that he had six months to live
A BRITISH man sold all his belongings - including his dog - after he was wrongly informed he had just six months to live. Malcolm McMahon, 55, from Erdington, central England, was advised to get his possessions in order after being diagnosed with severe liver cancer in February last year, the Birmingham Mail reported.
He gave away his Staffordshire Bull Terrier, put his four-bedroom home up for sale and sold some of his most precious belongings, including family heirlooms, in order to provide a legacy to his relatives.
Mr McMahon claims the same doctor who gave him a terminal diagnosis then reversed his conclusion three months later, after further examinations showed that blemishes on an ultrasound scan of his liver were harmless.
By that time, Mr McMahon had lost all his belongings. The false alarm also caused severe emotional stress to his girlfriend and relatives, who were already suffering after the death of his mother and brother to lung cancer in recent years.
"My girlfriend was devastated. I wanted to make sure the people I loved would be financially secure without me, so I sold antique rings, china ornaments and plates left by my parents for silly money as I thought I didn't have much time," Mr McMahon said.
"I sat there listening to the doctor detail about dying at home and how Macmillan nurses could help, but the whole time, I was fine. All that time spent worrying over nothing."
Dr Thompson, the practitioner who McMahon identified as giving the false prognosis and who works for the local health trust, was unavailable for comment.
Hundreds of foreign GPs work in Britain unchecked: NHS chiefs criticised for not testing EU doctors
Health trusts are ignoring pleas to test whether foreign doctors providing out-of-hours care can speak English. As many as three quarters of those flying in for lucrative shifts may not have faced language or competency tests, figures show.
Ministers and health regulators have been urging trusts to carry out proper checks after the tragic death of a pensioner at the hands of an incompetent German doctor in 2008.
David Gray, 70, died after Dr Daniel Ubani, who could barely speak English, gave him ten times the recommended dose of painkiller after flying in for his first NHS shift. Mr Gray’s son Stuart, who is a GP himself, said he was horrified at the figures. 'Lessons haven’t been learned, changes haven’t been made,' he said. 'What more does it take? It’s only a matter of time before there’s another death.'
Figures obtained through a freedom of information request show that as many as 1,500 foreign doctors working in surgeries across Britain have never been tested.
The General Medical Council, which regulates doctors, wrote to all trusts earlier this year urging them to carry out stringent checks. The GMC automatically registers any doctor registered in another EU country who applies to work here but is banned from testing them for competency. EU rules state such tests threaten ‘the free movement of labour’, and countries in breach face heavy fines from Brussels.
But there is no law against health trusts who then employ foreign doctors running their own tests to ensure they are no danger to British patients. In France, for example, foreign doctors are invited for ‘interviews’, and grilled on their ability to speak the language.
And doctors who apply to work here from countries outside the EU are subject to stringent tests on medical ability and language before they are registered.
Campaigners have accused health trusts of using the EU rules as an excuse and warned it is only a matter of time before another patient dies because of a doctor’s incompetence.
The figures, obtained by Pulse magazine, show that just 23 per cent of foreign doctors employed by Primary Care Trusts have had language tests and a mere 17 per cent have been tested on their competence. Shockingly, the trust which employed Dr Ubani - Cambridgeshire PCT - admitted that less than a third of its overseas doctors had faced language or competence checks.
Professor Steve Field, from the Royal College of GPs, said: ‘We’ve given PCTs a wake-up call and it’s disgraceful they still aren’t taking the issue seriously.’
Rising numbers of foreign doctors have been commuting to Britain ever since the new GP contract was brought in by Labour in 2004. Under the new system, British doctors no longer have to look after patients outside of office hours and care has been taken over by private companies, which often hire doctors from overseas.
It is not known exactly how many foreign GPs fly in to cover out-of-hours shifts but they are employed by up to a third of all trusts. They commute from Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland and can earn up to £200 an hour.
Only 35 PCTs were able to provide figures on the numbers of doctors who had passed language tests, and just 20 trusts had figures for competence checks. But if the figures provided were extrapolated for all 152 trusts in England and Wales, as many as 1,500 foreign doctors would not have been tested.
The Coalition has pledged to pass new laws to ensure foreign doctors are properly checked but has not given details.
A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘Employers and those contracting with health workers can, and indeed should, verify the language knowledge of any person they appoint to ensure they can undertake the duties being asked of them.’
Photographer Dave Hogan was waiting at a red traffic light in North London when he reached over to the passenger seat to retrieve his new iPhone, which was about to fall on to the floor.
As he did so, there was a knock on the car window. Dave looked up to see a callow youth in a policeman’s uniform instructing him to pull over to the kerb. What followed was a Kafkaesque encounter with the bold future of London law enforcement.
The young officer, who had only recently graduated from the police academy at Hendon and was receiving on-the-job supervision from a WPC, told Hogan to park in a busy bus lane.
He pointed out that not only was he stationary, he wasn’t actually using the phone, merely moving it back on the seat to prevent it sliding off. In any event, it had a hands-free attachment.
Furthermore, he invited the officer to examine the directory in his iPhone, which would prove he hadn’t been making a call. Modern mobiles contain a record of the date, time and duration of all incoming and outgoing calls. It indicated that he had last used the phone a few minutes earlier, when he had pulled onto a petrol station forecourt for a can of pop and a packet of crisps.
There was no activity at the time the policeman claimed he had seen Dave using the phone. The last call recorded was at 1.09pm, a fact also confirmed by the telephone service provider from its own computerised log. This didn’t prevent the rookie cop writing out a ticket, specifying the time the alleged offence had taken place: 1.15pm.
Hogan insists he was ultra-polite to the officer, even though his patience was sorely tried. While parked in the bus lane, he saw a number of motorists drive past using their mobiles on the move. When he pointed this out, the young copper wasn’t interested. Dave appealed to the more experienced WPC, but she refused to intervene.
The policeman asked him to make a statement. Dave denied categorically that he had been using his phone and had firm evidence to prove it. ‘Why aren’t you writing this down?’ he asked.
‘I shall summarise your comments,’ he was told. The officer then asked him to sign the summary. Dave declined, on the perfectly reasonable grounds that it wasn’t what he had said. The interview then took a surreal turn.
Plod asked for his ethnic origin. Why? Just routine, sir. The police have to record the race and sex of everyone they stop. Dave said he was Welsh. Young Lochinvar studied his form, which contained an impressive catalogue of exotic ethnic categories. But not, apparently, exhaustive. After scouring it for a few moments, he announced: ‘I haven’t got a box for Welsh. I’ll put you down as White Other.’
He gave Dave a summons, telling him he had a week to plead guilty by post, pay a £60 fine and accept three penalty points on his licence. The alternative was to challenge the ticket in court, and run the risk of being disqualified from driving and fined £1,000, if the magistrate sides with the Old Bill and refuses to believe his version of events.
Dave would also have to take a day off work and pay a lawyer £500 to argue his case. Both police officers could also be tied up in court for a whole day, reducing still further the pathetically small number of bobbies on the beat.
If the court accepts the phone company’s record, proving that no call had been made or received at the time alleged in the summons, Dave would be cleared and would be entitled to claim costs from the police. In other words, the taxpayer would end up footing the bill for this farce.
Dave tells me he intends to fight and the whole affair has left a sour taste. He has had a clean licence for 30 years, a remarkable achievement for any motorist in the age of the Gatso, let alone a Fleet Street photographer in a flash 4x4.
He’s even prepared to acknowledge an excess of zeal in an over-enthusiastic young bobby making his first tentative steps on the street in an official culture of bureaucratic box-ticking and a voracious appetite for income raised by fines. But that doesn’t explain the attitude of the dopey WPC supposed to be babysitting her young charge. She could have nipped the whole thing in the bud when it became obvious a mistake had been made.
In his long career in newspapers, Dave has always been happy to help the police. Now he says he wouldn’t give them the time of day. This incident blocked a bus lane for 25 minutes and has shaken Dave’s belief in the honesty of the police. He never imagined he would be fitted up for a phone call he can prove he didn’t make. He naturally wonders why the police would go to such lengths to criminalise a law-abiding, middle-class taxpayer.
Yesterday, as the Equalities Commission published its latest report on ‘fairness’, there was the usual furore over the high number of young black men supposedly stopped unnecessarily by the police. But I’ve never seen any statistics for the number of middle-class, white — or White Other, come to that — motorists buggered about for no good reason.
Dave’s promised to keep me posted, but I shouldn’t be surprised if by the end of the day I haven’t received a raft of emails from Daily Mail readers relating similar tales of woe and officiousness on the part of Plod.
And the police wonder why Middle Britain’s faith in the forces of law and order is at an all-time low. Mind how you go.
Child poverty is higher in working families than in jobless households, study shows
There are now more children living in poverty among working families than in homes where no-one has a job, analysis revealed yesterday. It found that the number of children who live below the official poverty line even though at least one of their parents goes out to work has jumped by a third – 80,000 – in just ten years.
At the same time there has been a drop of a quarter in the total number of children in poor families where no-one works – largely thanks to the last Labour government’s drive to give state help and extra benefits to single mothers.
Almost all of the impoverished working families have two parents and many are families in which the father holds down a job while the mother stays at home to bring up the children.
The figures, from a report by the charity Trust for London, cover the capital alone. But they reflect a slide into poverty for working families that has also been shown up by Whitehall figures over the past three years.
Department of Work and Pensions calculations suggest there are now around 1.8million children in the country who are living below the poverty line, even though at least one of their parents goes out to work.
The figures come at a time of growing controversy over the Coalition Government’s plans. Ministers have promised to reward working people and withdraw help from shirkers. But plans announced so far suggest middle-income working families will be hit.
Yesterday’s report, London’s Poverty Profile, measured families living on incomes that are under 60 per cent of average income - the figure used by Whitehall as the poverty line. In the financial year that ended in March 2008, for a family with two parents and two children under 14 this was £288 a week.
The report said that in London that the number of children in poverty in homes where no-one has a job had fallen from 415,000 in the late 1990s to 305,000 in 2009 – a drop of almost 27 per cent. But the number of poor children in working families went up from 240,000 to 320,000, an increase of 33 per cent. ‘The vast majority of children in low-income, working households are in couple households,’ the report said. ‘So in-work poverty is much more strongly associated with couple rather than lone parent households.’
It added: ‘This change reflects national trends – the number of children in low-income working households in the UK is now at a record level. ‘Moreover this number actually increased during the first months of the recession, as people in work moved from full time to part-time work, and households with two earners became single earner households.’
Other analysts have pointed to the way the benefits system favours single parents, particularly through the tax credit system. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that in some cases a single mother is £200 a week better off than a couple would be because of the benefit trap for two-parent families.
Dr Dan Boucher of the charity CARE, which last week showed that the Coalition changes to child benefit and tax credits will mean an effective tax increase of over 40 per cent for some one-earner families, said state policies were pushing families apart.
‘The Government uses taxpayers’ money to make it more rather than less likely that children will be brought up in one parent homes,’ he said. ‘We must move to a new system that is supportive of what research demonstrates is the best environment for child development, the two-parent family, and in which work pays.’
Bharat Mehta of Trust for London said that his charity’s report ‘gives us a real insight into the impact the recession has had’. He added: ‘We call upon the Chancellor carefully to consider what impact his cuts will have, and in particular who will pay the greatest price for them.’
They often already are de facto. Now they want to make it de jure
Britain’s most senior police officer has privately lobbied the Home Secretary to make it more difficult for civilians to sue Scotland Yard. Sir Paul Stephenson claimed that money is being wasted fighting speculative law suits by civilians alleging brutality or wrongful arrest.
The Metropolitan Police commissioner also urged the Home Secretary to load higher costs onto officers and other staff suing police forces at employment tribunals over claims of discrimination or unfair treatment.
He added that members of the public should be charged a fee for making Freedom of Information requests, which he said were burdening police forces with unmanageable levels of paperwork.
But civil rights groups have condemned Sir Paul’s suggestions as an attempt to put the police beyond the rule of law.
The Met commissioner wrote to Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on June 22. In the letter, marked confidential, he set out a list of proposals designed to cut costs and free officers from red tape.
Calling for more obstacles to be placed in the way of members of the public bringing civil claims against the police, he wrote: "We believe there needs to be a radical shakeup of the system; currently for every pound paid out in compensation, up to £10 or sometimes more has to be paid out in legal costs to the claimants' lawyers.
"One of the key aspects is that the average settlements are well under £10,000 and most under £5,000, in other words these are not major areas of police misconduct with long-lasting consequences but often technical breaches."
James Welch, of the civil rights group Liberty, said: "The ability to challenge police misconduct in court is a vital constitutional safeguard against abuse of power. Under current rules, if you lose a case in the civil courts you can expect to be ordered to pay your successful opponent's legal costs." "A service bound to uphold the rule of law should not attempt to carve out an exception for itself," he told The Guardian.
Sir Paul also complained that police are forced to waste time and money defending employment tribunal claims brought by staff who later drop them, without incurring any financial penalty.
"As you will be aware, currently there are no cost disincentives for claimants lodging speculative employment tribunal claims which are withdrawn after considerable public resources have been expended in order to respond to such claims.
"We propose that a fee for issuing claims could be introduced and the grounds upon which costs can be made widened to meet these concerns," he wrote.
"Similarly, there is currently no incentive for claimants to accept early offers of settlement and substantial cost could be saved if claimants were put on risk as to costs from the time that such an offer is made."
Paul McKeever, chief of the Police Federation of England and Wales, denied that officers and staff are making “speculative” claims against the forces that employ them.
"Going to an employment tribunal is the last resort people take after being frustrated by the system. Nobody wants to go to an employment tribunal – it's a horrible process to go through," he said.
Sir Paul also urged the Home Secretary to slap fees on freedom of information requests after his force received 3,373 such requests last year.
He wrote: "We welcome the recent government commitment to review the application of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] and would encourage you to consider introducing a fee (as there is for Data Protection Act requests) to bring it into line with the Data Protection Act."
A spokesman for the Home Office last night confirmed that Mrs May had received Sir Paul’s letter. He said: “The Home Secretary enjoys a good relationship with Sir Paul Stephenson. It is usual for him to write to her with his opinions and the home secretary always considers them carefully."
But Britain not mentioned in list of free countries below. Less free than Chile!
The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom lowers the ranking of the United States to eighth out of 179 nations -- behind Canada! A year ago, it ranked sixth, ahead of Canada.
Don't say it's Barack Obama's fault. Half the data used in the index is from George W. Bush's final six months in office. This is a bipartisan problem.
For the past 16 years, the index has ranked the world's countries on the basis of their economic freedom -- or lack thereof. Ten criteria are used: freedoms related to business, trade, fiscal matters, monetary matters, investment, finance, labor, government spending, property rights and freedom from corruption.
The top 10 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Denmark and Chile.
The bottom 10: Republic of Congo, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, Venezuela, Burma, Eritrea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea.
The index demonstrates what we libertarians have long said: Economic freedom leads to prosperity. Also, the best places to live and fastest-growing economies are among the freest, and vice versa. A society will be materially well off to the extent its people have the liberty to acquire property, start businesses, and trade in a secure legal and political environment.
Bill Beach, director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, which compiles the index with The Wall Street Journal, says the index defines "economic freedom" to mean: "You can follow your dreams, express yourself, create a business, do whatever job you want. Government doesn't run labor markets, or plan what business you can open, or over-regulate you."
We asked Beech about the U.S. ranking. "For first time in 16 years, the United States fell from the 'totally free' to 'mostly free' group. That's a terrible development," he said. He fears that if this continues, productive people will leave the United States for freer pastures.
"The United States has been this magnet for three centuries. But today money and people can move quickly, and in less than a lifetime a great country can go by the wayside."
Why is the United States falling behind? "Our spending has been excessive. ... We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. (Government) takeovers of industries, subsidizing industries ... these are the kinds of moves that happen in Third World countries. ..."
Beach adds that the rule of law declined when the Obama administration declared some contracts to be null and void. For example, bondholders in the auto industry were forced to the back of the creditor line during bankruptcy. And there's more regulation of business, such as the Dodd-Frank law for the financial industry and the new credit-card law. But how could the United States place behind Canada? Isn't Canada practically a socialist country?
"Canada might do health care the wrong way," Beach said, "but by and large they do things the right way." Lately, Canada has lowered tax rates and reduced spending.
Britons are less environmentally conscious than they were five years ago, with twice as many people now "bored" by talk of climate change as in 2005. Four in 10 take no action at all to reduce their household carbon dioxide emissions. Experts warn that green fatigue is a major reason why there are more cars on the roads, more planes in the sky and no reduction in the mountain of packaging waste.
As a new energy report reveals that too few people are making an effort to reduce their household CO2 emissions, environmentalists believe the recession is further undermining public commitment.
The report, by market researchers Mintel, shows that many of Britain's 26 million homes fail to make simple adjustments such as turning down thermostats, switching off lights and switching off appliances rather than leaving them on standby. The findings also reveal people are less willing to spend money on energy-efficient appliances than they were five years ago. Analysts believe the recession together with a backlash against "extreme" environmentalist pressure has reduced people's enthusiasm to combat climate change.
The report also found that resistance to saving the planet was greater among men: one in four said they think there is too much concern over the environment, compared with one in six women.
Other evidence of waning public interest in consumers' carbon footprint includes a rise in air and car travel. The number of cars on UK roads has risen from just over 26 million in 2005 to more than 31 million in 2009. Air travel has also increased, the number of passengers rising from 227 million in 2005 to 235 million in 2008.
New research from the Energy Saving Trust found that climate change has taken a back seat to recession concerns. The authors of the Mintel, blaming the problem partly on consumer ignorance, recommend the Government "help consumers to help themselves" by providing them with more information about energy savings in accessible ways.
David Cameron has reneged on a pre-election promise to reward early adopters of solar panels and other domestic green energy generation, it has emerged.
Under the "feed-in tariff" scheme introduced in April, owners of solar panels fitted to houses after 15 July 2009 are paid 41.3p per unit of electricity, while householders who put up panels before that date get just 9p.
Green energy campaigners had fought the difference, which they called a "betrayal".
Responding in March to a letter from one of his Witney constituents calling for an increase in payments to such "pioneers", wrote in a letter seen by the Guardian: "I agree with you that the [Labour] government's current proposals for feed-in-tariffs will unfairly penalise the very people who were the early investors in local energy."
He added: "That is why under a Conservative government, any micro-generation technologies that have already been installed … will be eligible for the new higher tariffs once they commence."
Within days of taking power as PM, he also said the coalition would be the "greenest government ever".
But last month, responding to a question from Green MP Caroline Lucas the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, ruled out any such move. "I considered the issue carefully on a value-for-money basis, andI am afraid that the advice from my officials was clearly that we cannot introduce retrospection in such cases because it does not represent value for money," he said.
"We are trying to introduce new schemes in future, and therefore, sadly, the only incentive and payback that people such as the Hon Lady and I will get is the warm glow of being pioneers."
Charles Hendry, the Conservative MP who is now minister of state at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), also wrote pre-election letters to campaigners, saying a Tory government would pay higher rates to those who had installed early. Many Lib Dem MPs pledged it too, signing an early-day motion on the issue.
Julie Davenport, chief executive of renewable energy supplier Good Energy, said Cameron's U-turn showed he was failing on his promise of a "big society": "Good Energy is extremely disappointed that the government has not met its own pre-election promise to support early adopters of renewable technologies. We urge David Cameron to ensure that there is no further reduction to the feed-in tariffs in any way."
"Feed-in tariffs encourage new, local investment in green energy, are a catalyst to break up traditional energy markets and help many ordinary people make a difference to climate change. Isn't that what a "big society" really means – taking control from the few and giving it back to the many?"
In addition to Huhne's comments, recent speculation that the 41.3p feed-in-tariff rate will be cut as part of spending review annoucements on 20 October mean it is now highly unlikely that early adopters will get the redress they hoped for.
British government may cap tuition fees at £7,000, says Vince Cable
Business secretary scraps Lib Dem policy of opposition to fees and accepts thrust of Lord Browne's report into university funding
The government may cap tuition fees at £7,000 a year, Vince Cable said today, as he told MPs he accepted the thrust of Lord Browne's report proposing a radical overhaul of higher education funding.
In statement to MPs, the Liberal Democrat business secretary scrapped his party's policy of opposing tuition fees – but he may still face rebellion from his backbenchers. Before the election all Lib Dem MPs, including Cable and Nick Clegg, signed a pledge opposing tuition fees.
Cable told MPs this afternoon: "We are considering a level of £7,000. Many universities and colleges may well decide to charge less than that, since there is clearly scope for greater efficiency and innovation in the way universities operate. Two-year ordinary degrees are one approach.
"Exceptionally, Lord Browne suggests there should be circumstances under which universities can price their courses above this point. But, he suggests, this would be conditional on demonstrating that funds would be invested in securing a good social mix with fair access for students with less privileged backgrounds, and in raising the quality of teaching and learning. We will consider this carefully."
The business secretary said the government endorsed "the main thrust" of Browne's report. "But we are open to suggestions from inside and outside the house over the next few weeks before making specific recommendations to parliament, with a view to implementing the changes for students entering higher education in autumn 2012.
"More detail will be contained in next week's spending review on the funding implications. But as a strategic direction the government believes the report is on the right lines."
He said one of the government's proposals might be "exempting the poorest students from graduate contributions for some or all of their studies".
Directly addressing the issue of the breaking of the Lib Dem pledge, Cable said that he was the first member of his family to go to university, something he did not have to pay for. He would like others to have that opportunity, he said, but in the current circumstances that was not possible.
"I signed that pledge with my colleagues," he said. "[But] in the current financial situation ... which we inherited, all pledges, all commitments, will have to be reexamined from first principles."
John Denham, the shadow business secretary, reminded Cable that Clegg had said before the election that increasing tuition fees would be "a disaster". "Promises were made by the business secretary and the deputy prime minister at the last election that should not be lightly thrown away," Denham said.
Cable plans an early repayment penalty for tuition fees to prevent rich graduates paying less for their university education than those on middle incomes by avoiding cumulative interest payments, the Guardian has learned. He outlined the proposal to Lib Dem MPs last night. It is not clear how exactly he would organise the penalty, but it suggests he recognises there is a flaw in the scheme being proposed by Browne that makes the scheme less progressive than it might be. It is also not clear whether the early repayment penalty has the support of the Conservatives.
Browne proposed the cap on tuition fees – currently £3,290 a year – should be entirely lifted, with graduates starting to repay the cost of their degrees when they start earning £21,000 a year, up from £15,000 under the current system. Institutions charging more than £6,000 would have to pay a rising percentage of each additional £1,000 as a levy to government.
The interest rate at which graduates pay back their loans would be at the government's cost of borrowing – inflation plus 2.2%. However, those students earning below £21,000 would pay no real interest rate under the Browne plans. Their loan balance would increase in line with inflation.
But the business secretary is battling to prevent a full-scale rebellion taking hold of his party over Browne's proposals.
Greg Mulholland, the Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, emerged as the ringleader of the rebellion, warning: "Without Lib Dem support and with Lib Dem ministers abstaining, it will be very difficult to get this through.
"It is certainly my belief that this is not a done deal and the strength of feeling among Lib Dem MPs could derail any attempts to see fees rising substantially and I will certainly be doing everything I can to make that happen."
Mulholland insisted that his rebellion did not a represent a threat to the future of the coalition arrangement.
He added: "I do not think this is a threat at all because it [the agreement] clearly states that Lib Dems will be allowed to abstain."
Many Liberal Democrat MPs know their credibility and chances of retaining their seats rest on showing they are fighting the rise in tuition fees.
Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, called for all Lib Dems to "consider fully" both Browne's proposals and the government's response. He said his fellow MPs were "very conscious of the positions we have taken on higher education and the policies we campaigned for at the last election".
"Parliament should only support a progressive system which takes into account future earnings and makes sure that those who benefit most financially from a university education contribute the most," Hughes – who functions as a lightning rod for Lib Dem discontent – added.
Tim Farron, the Lib Dem MP who is standing for the post of party president, wrote on the Twitter website that he would vote against an increase in tuition fees. "Unhappy with Browne report & would vote against fee rise," Farron posted.
John Leech, the Lib Dem MP for Manchester Withington, said: "I signed the NUS pledge and supported our manifesto, which promised to vote against any rise in tuition fees. I am going to keep that promise. This is a political red line for me."
His fellow MP Stephen Williams told Radio 5 Live he was unhappy about tuition fees going up and said he would "certainly" vote against the government if the Browne report was just about increasing tuition fees. But he hinted that, if Cable were to produce a more progressive scheme, he could support it. "Effectively at the moment you've got a flat-rate poll tax on all new graduates and if Vince is able to come up with a progressive system with different thresholds, perhaps different rates of repayment – you wouldn't call it a graduate tax, but it will have elements of graduation within it – that will be a much more progressive system for repayment than we have at the moment."
Gordon Birtwistle, the Liberal Democrat MP for Burnley, who is a parliamentary private secretary in the Treasury, said: "At the moment, the Browne report as it is, is unpalatable, and we need to see what changes we can make. I was against an increase in tuition fees, but the financial situation makes it inevitable that it will happen. The country is basically bankrupt."
Asked how he would vote, Birtwistle said: "I am keeping my powder dry."
John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP for Birmingham Yardley, also gave a measured response, saying: "If you have a progressive scheme in which people on high incomes pay more than those on low incomes then it is moving towards a graduate tax. I will be getting out my calculator and studying the proposals in detail. One question is whether it is the fees system or a progressive graduate contribution."
Clegg knows that many of his minsters will be free to abstain, and many are likely to do so, but he cannot yet know if public opinion will see that as sufficient form of resistance.
Linda Jack, a member of the Lib Dems' federal policy committee, told the BBC's World at One she thought around 30 Lib Dem MPs could rebel over tuition fees. "I expect them to vote against because, frankly, if they abstain they are effectively voting for, because they know that if they abstain it will go through. The integrity of the party is at stake here. Everybody signed that pledge that they would vote against an increase in tuition fees so they have really got to stick to their guns on this."
Liberal Youth, the youth and student wing of the Liberal Democrats, warned that removing the cap on tuition fees would lead to unrestricted costs and a market in higher education.
Martin Shapland, the group's chairman, said: "You simply cannot build our future on debt. This move has the potential to cripple students with unprecedented levels of debt which will act as a real deterrent to those from poorer backgrounds seeking a better life through the education system.
"Higher fees will not be acceptable to grassroots Lib Dems and, I imagine, most of the parliamentary party."
Left bed-bound by up to 20 migraines a month, 12-year-old Harvey Jacobs has found an unlikely cure – Botox.
His mother Sue, 39, heard claims that the wrinkle treatment could put an end to the crippling headaches and arranged for her son to have the procedure eight weeks ago. For the first time in years he has not had a single migraine in weeks and is like a ‘new boy’, she said.
The mother of three added: ‘The difference is amazing. We were absolutely desperate. He used to have about three days a week off school and this term he has had no time off at all. We have even managed to take days out as a family. It is wonderful.’
Harvey, who also suffers from mild cerebral palsy and epilepsy, was first struck down by agonising migraines six years ago. At times he would be incapacitated five times in a week and be in such agony he would be screaming for 24 hours.
The Botox treatment works by relaxing the corrugator muscle – the small ‘frown’ muscle around the eyebrow – which can cause migraines by affecting the trigeminal nerve, which is responsible for sensation in the face.
Harvey was booked into a private clinic where he was given an injection above his right eye. The £350 treatment lasts around two months.
Migraines affect one in seven people and cost the British economy billions each year.
The most amazing (and disgraceful) part of this story is the last paragraph
It's cheaper for the NHS and promises a swifter and less painful recovery, but is your keyhole surgery as safe as you think?
Sitting on the edge of his wife June’s hospital bed, Les Wyles could only look on in despair. Just a few weeks earlier, June had been an active 57-year-old who loved gardening and walking.
Now June lay critically ill in the high-dependency unit after undergoing a keyhole operation to remove her gallbladder as a treatment for gallstones.
Keyhole, otherwise known as laparoscopic surgery, is now the standard treatment for many conditions. Unlike conventional surgery, which involves a large incision, in a keyhole operation the surgeon works through tiny incisions, guided by images transmitted from a camera inserted into the body. As the procedure is minimally invasive, the wounds heal faster. There is also less scarring and less post-operative pain, which means patients can often go home the same day.
But it can go horribly wrong, as June discovered. In her case, the surgeon hadn’t closed the duct leading from her gall bladder, leaving bile leaking into her stomach. None of this was apparent when June was discharged from the Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, the next day.
But just a few days later, June began to suffer shooting pains. Despite being re-admitted for tests, she was told there was nothing wrong and, a week later, she was discharged again. The pain became so excruciating that she could barely stand.
June was rushed to hospital when a relation, a retired GP, said her symptoms suggested she had the potentially fatal biliary peritonitis — when bile leaks into the stomach, producing toxins that can lead to organ failure. Though her surgeon was sceptical, scans confirmed the diagnosis. June needed emergency surgery to stop the duct leaking.
Four years on, she needs help when even slightly exerting herself. As well having a long scar running vertically down her stomach, she is frequently in pain. ‘I’m still suffering to this day,’ she says.
It’s an alarming story — and far from unique. Indeed, following a series of blunders involving keyhole surgery, surgeons have been issued a warning about the technique by the National Patient Safety Agency.
In some cases, surgeons damaged patients’ organs. Sometimes the mistake was repaired before the operation was completed, but in others the damage went unnoticed until the patients’ conditions deteriorated.
In the past five years, there have been 11 cases of patients dying as a result of keyhole surgery, and around 500 cases of serious damage — including perforated bowels and damaged blood vessels.
These cases are a worrying development, says Kenneth Park, a surgeon at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and Albyn Hospital. He suspects part of the problem is that keyhole surgery is a demanding skill and not every surgeon is up to it.
‘A surgeon may have done hundreds of gall bladder operations, but they have to use a different technique with keyhole,’ he says. ‘It requires spatial awareness, depth perception, and an ability to see things from different angles looking at a screen. ‘Even if those organs have been magnified, it won’t suit all surgeons. Some have to hold their hands up and say it’s not their skill.’
‘In principle, it’s a wonderful concept,’ adds Rory McLoy, a consultant surgeon at Lancashire Teaching Hospitals. ‘But it doesn’t suit everyone. Statistics show 2 to 3 per cent of the UK population don’t have good co-ordination. Therefore it makes sense that surgeons are affected the same way. You need perfect co-ordination to do keyhole.’
There is also concern about how keyhole surgeons’ competency is assessed. ‘You may have a yearly appraisal as a general surgeon, but that is only as rigorous as the appraiser and you may not have done many laparoscopic procedures,’ says Mr Park. ‘But you’ll get a nod for your overall performance.’
Another concern is that many surgeons have high expectations of the operation, which means they might not be prepared for things if they do go wrong, says Mr McLoy, who often appears as an expert witness in legal cases involving keyhole surgery. ‘Patients go to hospital thinking they will be out on the same day, and so do the doctors. I fear this has led to a relaxed attitude. People forget surgery has risks, so they fail to act when signs of complications — such as pain or vomiting — first occur.’
Mr Park adds: ‘It’s easy for there to be a belief that surgery has gone well after the operation. ‘Every tiny stage of the procedure needs to be checked. When complications occur during the keyhole procedure, it may be necessary to convert the operation to traditional surgery. But some surgeons may view that as a failure and will press on with keyhole. 'People need to know of the risks they take with keyhole surgery'
‘There is a whole new generation of surgeons brought up on doing keyhole. But this may mean they are getting less experience doing traditional surgery. So if there is a need to convert the procedure, it may require calling in a senior surgeon to help. That’s a mental hurdle for a young surgeon.’
Mike Parker, a Royal College of Surgeons council member and the past-president of Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons says: ‘Providing information and the availability of professional support after leaving hospital is basic stuff and will prevent deaths. ‘This type of operation is becoming widely adopted in the NHS because they have been proven to offer fewer complications and a shorter length of stay.’
Meanwhile, June Wyles faces a lifetime of debilitating discomfort following a procedure which had promised to be quick, successful and pain-free. ‘I used to be active, but I can do very little for myself,’ she says. ‘I never imagined this nightmare could happen.’
Although she successfully sued her hospital for negligence, she would like to see the surgeon involved struck off or re-trained .
A spokesman for Royal Cornwall Hospital said: ‘There was no criticism of the way Mrs Wyles’ keyhole procedure was performed, although there was a delay in diagnosing what is a recognised complication of this type of surgery. ‘The General Medical Council supported our own review of her case, which found there was no concern regarding the skill and expertise of her surgeon.’
THOUSANDS of failed asylum seekers will be allowed to stay in Britain to help clear Labour’s massive backlog. More than 135,000 will be told they can remain, with 100,000 cases still ongoing.
Coalition ministers were horrified when they realised the true scale of the problem.
Officials have dealt with two thirds of the 450,000 cases by granting permanent residency to around 2,000 failed applicants each week. Only 35,000 were sent home after assessment, with critics claiming officials have been granting amnesty through the backdoor.
There are fears many cases are being rubber-stamped without proper checks, despite inspectors originally saying the individuals should have been deported. But the Home Office is worried it could face legal challenges under the human rights acts because so many of the cases date back years.
Once applicants have been given indefinite leave to remain, they are one step away from British citizenship which then allows them to claim benefits.
Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green, 69, said: “This is an appalling legacy from the previous Government and its impact will be to encourage more bogus asylum seekers.”
A spokesman for UK Border Agency said: “All ‘legacy’ cases are considered on their individual merits and we are confident that we will conclude the backlog by summer 2011. “The majority of asylum applications are now being concluded within six months.”
... AS 'BRIT' GETS THE BOOT
A businessman who was raised, schooled, married and got his first job in the UK has been told he can’t live here as he’s not “British”, writes Bill Martin. US-born Stephen Hewitt, 50, can trace his Brit ancestry back to 1410.
His first wife is English and eldest daughter Pamela was born here. Now he wants full residency – but an immigration tribunal turned him down because his UK ties are “not strong enough”.
He said: “I’m bitter. I’m not asking for any special circumstances. My family has a long history in England.”
Hitler still has his followers among the British Left
As he did in the 1930s
According to author and columnist Virginia Ironside, most adopted kids would be better off dead. As would most children she considers "unfit". In fact, she says, a "loving" mother would smother a sickly child with a pillow, because the "suffering" of being ill makes that life meaningless and not worth living. She made these vile assertions in defense of abortion while appearing on the BBC's Sunday Morning Live during a discussion grossly entitled "Can abortion be a kindness?" First, her odious attempt to argue that abortion is a "loving choice" because some kids, in her mind, are unwanted. Her tunnel-visioned, sad excuse for a mind can't seem to fathom the fact that the children are always wanted, by someone. You know, like people with hearts and compassion.
Not having an abortion can amount to selfishness.
Abortion can often be seen as something wicked or irresponsible but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act. If a baby is to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely abortion is the act of a loving mother.
I was rendered speechless when I first watched this. Killing a child for being inconvenient to someone is "loving, moral and unselfish"? So, having a baby is, therefore, selfish? Besides her utter lack of a soul, she is completely morally bankrupt. And I think she has some explaining to do to very happy and loved children who have been adopted as well as to the mothers who, according to her, were so selfish as to give that child life. My friend, Rick Sheridan, can teach her a thing or two about what an actual unselfish act is. His adopted baby girl can also teach her what a loving mother actually does. Her mama gave her life and gave her A life. She didn't kill her. She unselfishly bore her and gifted Rick and his wife with a beautiful baby girl. I suggest Virginia look at a picture of Rick and his beautiful daughter and try to explain to her why she would have been better off dead.
Virginia Ironside then followed up her insane arguments for eugenics due to "unwantedness" (it's so crazy, it needs its own word) by being a proponent of killing children, unborn or born, whose health isn't up to snuff for her standards.
And I think that if I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want I mean a deeply suffering child I would be the first one to put a pillow over its head. I would with any suffering thing and I think the difference is that my feeling of horror suffering is many greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells because suffering can go on for years.
Hey, you know what else can go on for years, Virginia? Someone's life. You should know. You authored a book called The Virginia Monologues - 20 Reasons Why Growing Old is Great. Yet, you'd willingly kill a child and not give him or her that chance to grow old. Growing old is only great for you and whomever you deem fit enough, huh?
In ancient Sparta, babies who were considered handicapped or in any way not perfectly healthy were exposed to the elements, left on a mountainside to die. Have to "purify" society and all! That was a long time ago and thankfully modern civilization has come a long way. Now we use pillows.
Gee, it's too bad we don't have a fancy, new-fangled thing called medicine. To pro-abortionists, an illness is a reason to kill a baby. In fact, they believe that life is expendable for any reasonif it doesn't fit into your personal plans. This includes life that is outside of the woman's body. Ms. Ironside, like most pro-abortionists, also fails to mention those pesky babies who won't cooperate and who survive abortion attempts. Much like our President, who gives them so little thought that he, as a Senator in Illinois debating a Born Alive bill, said this:
As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it- is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead..
However you want to describe "it". Sort of like the suffering "things" Ms. Ironside referred to above. And, not coming out limp and dead. How dare they insist on having the human will to live and the strong spirit to survive.
Lest you think Ms. Ironside is just some lone loon, The Guardian helpfully pointed out what monsters Leftists are by running an "article" by one of Ms. Ironside's fellow travelers:
The decision is always portrayed as being inherently irresponsible and destructive - Ironside argued that, if it prevented an unwanted child or a child being born profoundly disabled, then it was a good decision that a woman could be proud of. It wasn't the most tactful pro-choice argument you've ever heard (at one point, she alludes to "fatherless" children in the same bracket as the unwanted: that will enrage a few single mothers), but it wasn't a radical new shift in pro-choice thinking.
Yeah, that's the problem: It might be offensive to some single mothers. The moral bankruptcy is staggering. However, at least she's honest. It is NOT a new shift in pro-abortion thinking. This is what they believe and it always has been.
The reason it's controversial is twofold: first, pro-choicers have totally backed out of the abortion conversation, which has in consequence become dominated by anti-abortionists; second, because Ironside collapses "disabled" and "unwanted" into the same category. This is pretty insulting to disabled people..
Oh, we wouldn't want to be insulting! Killing is okay, but insulting? That's taboo! Unless of course, you are one of the "unwanteds". No one cares what you feel.
Of course Ironside is not waging a war against the disabled: she simply said "life isn't a gift per se". There are plenty of circumstances that make it more burdensome than joyful.
They have taken the miracle of life and have made it expendable and burdensome. On purpose. There's the difference between Ms. Ironside and I, and others like me, right there. We know that life is a priceless gift. A child's life has infinite value that cannot ever be fully measured. No alleged burden can take away from that fact, nor from the multitude of moments of love and joy, of human touch and loving arms, of beauty and grace, of happiness and wonder.
A plan for higher university fees, fewer subsidies, more markets and less government has been unveiled by an independent review into the future of the English higher education system.
The radical blueprint, revealed on Tuesday by a panel chaired by Lord Browne, the former chief executive of BP, will cause tremors in the coalition government and problems for Labour.
The review proposes removing the current cap on annual fees of £3,290. If institutions want to charge more than £6,000, however, they will be obliged to pay a levy to recompense the government for the cost of higher student loans.
This levy, it is hoped, will keep fees in check, by increasing rapidly with tuition charges. An academic body raising its annual fees from £6,000 to £7,000 would keep £600 of the uplift in charges. By contrast, a university moving from £11,000 to £12,000 would keep only £250 of the extra income.
In a scenario mapped out in the report, the government could save £2.8bn by concentrating the teaching subsidies paid to universities on courses that are expensive or strategically important and cutting them for other, cheaper subjects. In this situation, average fees would rise to above £7,000.
The report will test the Liberal Democrats, who fought the election promising to abolish fees. But Lord Browne’s recommendations will also cause problems for Labour, which has come out in favour of a graduate tax, an idea that the report dismisses.
Making students pay a greater share of the cost of their degrees would increase the market pressures on English universities. But this is only one pro-market part of the package.
Lord Browne also proposes allowing any student who meets basic attainment criteria to buy education from any provider accredited by a powerful new watchdog, the Higher Education Council. This new super-regulator’s remit would include:
* Making sure that students have the benefit of more information about the courses on offer to them;
* Distributing subsidies on teaching for expensive, strategically important and vulnerable subjects;
* Enforcing teaching quality standards;;
* Making sure new entrants can enter the sector:
* Dealing with financial failure in universities;
* Adjudicting disputes between students and their universities; and
* Enforcement of new access rules.
Institutions charging more than £7,000 would be required to submit to more vigorous scrutiny to make sure that students from poor backgrounds are not being discouraged from applying to them.
The Browne report also proposes a simplification of the current byzantine system of bursaries for poor students. All students would be eligible for a loan to cover living costs and a more generous means-tested grant.
The report also recommends cutting the cost of the heavily-subsidised student loan system, but attempts to do so in a way that does not penalise graduates who go on to earn little money.
As at the moment, all fees would be covered by student loans. Currently, these loans are repaid by graduates, with 9 per cent of income above £15,000 clipped from their pay packets. A zero per cent real interest rate is charged against the balance and outstanding debts are forgiven after 25 years.
Under the new scheme, graduates will pay back 9 per cent of their income above £21,000 and that threshold will rise with earnings. But the interest rate for those who earning more than that level will also be linked to the government’s cost of borrowing and loans would not be forgiven for 30 years.
Any student who earns more than the threshold, but not enough to cover the cost of the higher rate of interest – 2.2 per cent above inflation – would have the rest of interest rebated to them. No student should therefore face a rising real debt burden because of interest accrual.
Part-time students will be given access to this loan system, so long as they study more than one third as intensively as a full-time student.
Vince Cable, the Lib Dem business secretary, asked Lord Browne in July to consider a graduate tax, a special income tax levied on former students that could be used to pay for the university system. Mr Cable has subsequently disavowed interest in the policy. But Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has meanwhile committed his party to the policy.
Responding to Mr Cable’s request to consider the proposal, the report contains an annex which explains that the graduate tax would need to be set at 3 per cent of lifetime income to pay for the sector and would not raise enough to pay for the whole system until 2041-42. The plan would also increase the deficit by £3bn a year in the short term.
Reg Thompson, a retired computer manager, loves the view from his rear bedroom window over the beech trees and across the lush green fields of Norfolk in the east of England. But if E.ON, a German power company, has its way, that view would soon include five wind turbines about 15 times the height of his house.
The view is not the only thing that worries Thompson, 62. In April, he dressed up in a bird’s costume with pink Wellington boots to protest the turbines and their danger to the rare pink-footed goose the region is famous for. There are 250,000 of them left, and Thompson fears that wind turbines could slash that number. “We were blessed with these rare animals, and the danger is they would either get chopped up by the turbine blades or would be driven off their feeding ground,’’ Thompson said.
The local council is due to decide on E.ON’s planning application later this year.
Despite growing opposition from citizens, nature conservation trusts, and local lawmakers, the government continues to push for more wind farms across the country. Time is ticking toward a deadline in 2020 set by the European Union by which Britain would have to increase the amount of power it generates from renewable sources to 15 percent, from 3 percent now.
Britain is among Europe’s laggards in expanding the renewable share of its energy mix, ranking in the bottom three of the European Union league table just above Luxembourg and Malta. Many industry experts question whether the government can meet the target within a decade, especially when money is tight.
The coalition government was expected to announce drastic cuts in public spending recently as part of a plan to reduce a record public deficit. And even though Prime Minister David Cameron had said renewable energy would remain one of his priorities, it is not clear how much he will be able to spend on such projects as the government cuts social benefits.
In a giant leap toward meeting the European Union target, Britain recently opened the world’s largest offshore wind turbine farm in the North Sea off Thanet, at the southeast tip of England. Operated by Vattenfall, a Swedish energy company, it has 100 turbines spreading over 13.5 square miles, with a capacity to power more than 200,000 homes.
Vattenfall’s turbines raised Britain’s wind-power-generating capacity to five gigawatts, enough to power every home in Scotland, the government said. Chris Huhne, Britain’s energy secretary, said the country was “in a unique position to become a world leader in this industry.’’ “We are an island nation, and I firmly believe we should be harnessing our wind, wave, and tidal resources to the maximum,’’ Huhne said.
Indeed, despite the renewable sector’s lowly ranking in percentage terms, Britain now generates more energy from offshore wind turbines than any other European country, according to the government.
With a height of 377 feet, or 115 meters, Vattenfall’s turbines are visible from the coast in Kent. Unlike onshore wind farms, however, they have attracted few objections from local villagers. As a result, the government has recently started to focus more on offshore than onshore wind farms, even though they tend to be more expensive to build.
List of mistakes that should never happen in NHS is extended
NHS hospitals have been warned they will not be paid if patients die or are harmed by staff blunders as a new list of 'never events' is drawn up.
A core list of eight 'never events' were issued in 2009 covering operating on the wrong part of the body, leaving a surgical instrument inside a patient and the death of a woman following a haemorrhage after a pre-planned caesarean delivery.
Now the list is being expanded to cover more instances of inexcusable mistakes by healthcare staff. The new list includes:
- Death or serious injury from giving a patient the wrong blood or an incompatible organ.
- A death or injury resulting from a patient becoming trapped in bedrails.
- Deaths resulting from an overdose of insulin when given in hospital.
- Giving a patient the wrong gas resulting in a patient dying or being seriously injured.
- Death or injury of a patient while being restrained.
- Brain damage caused by untreated jaundice in newborns.
The list of events will be closely monitored and where they do occur hospitals will not receive payment for the treatment of that patient, with the aim of ensuring lessons are learned.
In the first year there were 111 "never" events reported from the original list of eight, just over half were wrong site surgery.
The National Patient Safety Agency, which monitors errors in NHS hospitals, reported that the wrong site surgery cases occured in a variety of operations and in hospitals across the country.
The report said that full implementation of the World Health Organisation's Safer Surgery Checklist, in which all theatre staff stop at intervals and run through a set list of checks, should prevent wrong site surgery from occuring.
Simon Burns Health Minister said: “Our recent White Paper makes clear that unsafe care is not to be tolerated. We are committed to extending the system of ‘never events’ – things that are preventable and should never happen to patients in NHS care. We will introduce clear disincentives through non-payments, just as there will be clear incentives for quality.
“Across the NHS there must be a culture of patient safety above all else. These measures will help to protect patients and give commissioners the powers to take action if unacceptable mistakes happen.”
NHS Medical Director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh said: "Never events by their very name should never occur in a modern NHS. The proposed list includes avoidable incidents with serious adverse consequences for patients.
"No one wants these to happen, therefore we will not pay hospitals when these events occur. This will send a strong signal to leaders of the organisation to learn from their mistakes so they don't happen again."
British dinner lady in 'grooming for sex' row with education chiefs after giving pupil a BISCUIT
More bureaucratic evil
A dinner lady was warned she could be accused of 'grooming' a primary school pupil after she gave him a biscuit. Pat Lavery, a catering supervisor, handed the boy a biscuit after he asked for one. The child and the woman are related.
But the following day, she was warned that her action could be interpreted under child protection legislation as 'grooming' the child for sexual exploitation. She was so upset that she refused to return to work at St Mary’s Primary School in Co Fermanagh, Northern Ireland, until the row was sorted out. During this time, she was threatened with the sack and suffered a 'horrendous' two years of rumour and innuendo.
Yesterday her husband, Eoghan Lavery, said: 'It has been a horrendous two-plus years for my wife because there was a shadow hanging over her that she’d done something wrong.'
His wife was made to attend three meetings, firstly with the acting principal then two with the school principal to discuss the biscuit incident. One of the meetings lasted more than an hour and when she was requested to attend a fourth meeting, she left her job because she was so upset after being subjected to 'a grilling'.
The incident was reported to Northern Ireland Ombudsman Tom Frawley, who heard that during her absence the woman’s parish priest was told by the principal that she was absent from school due to a 'serious child protection issue'.
Mr Frawley said Mrs Lavery should receive an apology for her treatment. She will also receive compensation.
The dinner lady told the ombudsman that in May 2008 she was working in the school kitchen when a child raised his hand and asked for a biscuit. She brought this to the attention of the catering assistant who was serving biscuits and gave permission that the child could be given one.
She said that the next day, the Key Stage 1 manager, who was acting principal, came to the kitchen and told her that under the Child Protection Act she could be seen to be grooming a child. The child in question is a relative of Mrs Lavery.
Mrs Lavery then endured a meeting at which the matter was considered resolved. But when the permanent principal returned to work, she told of the potential child protection problems.
She told the ombudsman: 'I left the meeting very upset and confused... I felt that I had been subjected to a grilling and a "wrist-slapping exercise".' She also told the inquiry that she gave no preferential treatment and any child approaching the serving hatch would have been treated in the same manner.
A further 40-minute meeting took place and when the principal sought a further meeting with her she decided to leave her job. She was informed that if she did not return to St Mary’s by February this year she would lose her job.
She said she was 'aggrieved' that the principal told the parish priest she was absent from school due to a 'serious child protection issue'.
The ombudsman said the board did take the initiative to arrange temporary postings for Mrs Lavery in other schools while a resolution to her complaint was being sought. But he noted his 'concern' that Mrs Lavery was informed that if she did not return to St Mary’s by February 1 her employment would be terminated.
'It is my view that the abrupt manner in which the board informed her of that development was highly insensitive to her position... it made her feel very anxious about having to return to a working environment in which there was still a lack of policy or procedure for dealing with any future grievances she may have had about her non-board co-workers,' the ombudsman said. The threat to terminate her employment if she failed to return was 'entirely inappropriate'.
A deal was eventually reached between the school and Mrs Lavery and she returned to work.
In a statement, the school said: 'We understood that the issues were resolved to the satisfaction of the individuals involved using mediation through the Labour Relations Agency.'
Mervyn Storey, chairman of the Stormont Education Committee, said that while rules were there to protect children and staff, this was a case of 'political correctness gone too far'. 'I think it's a sad situation that schools are so boxed in because of legislation,' Mr Storey said.
Eureka, the science magazine from The Times, is in many ways a brilliant accomplishment. Advertising is following readers in an online migration - but James Harding, the editor, personally persuaded advertisers that a new magazine, in a newspaper, devoted to science would work. And here it is: giving the New Scientist a run for its money every month.
That's why it's such a shame that today's magazine opens on an anti-scientific piece denouncing those who disagree with the climate consensus. My former colleague Ben Webster, now the paper's environment correspondent, is an energetic and original journalist - so it's depressing to see his skills deployed in a game of hunt-the-heretic.
The magazine's list of 100 greatest scientists is preceded by a heretic list of five 'sceptics' who are denounced on the flimsiest of grounds. Bjorn Lomborg is no.1. "He appears to concede that man-made global warming is a serious problem," says Webster. Appears to? He has explicitly stated this, time and time again. His argument is that we must introduce proportion to the debate: ask what these expensive solutions actually achieve. And ask whether, if saving lives is the priority, money could be spent in better ways. Webster finds him guilty of "producing alarming statistics that suggest cutting carbon is too expensive". Strikingly Webster does not say that his figures are wrong, or exaggerated. To dismiss studies because the conclusion is wrong is not science, but spin.
Next, Nigel Lawson and his Global Warming Policy Foundation. "This 'think tank' of retired grandees gives sceptic arguments a veneer of authority," he complains. Might that be because the board's credentials are impeccable? That they include former Cabinet Secretaries with no skin in the climate change fight - other than dismay at the anti-intellectual way the debate is conducted?
Bafflingly, Sarah Palin is next. She is credited with "exploiting the University of East Anglia emails to undermine last December's Copenhagen summit". Can anyone remember the part in that summit where things were going swimmingly until Palin intervened? My recollection is of a summit buckling under the weight of its own contradictions. The idea of sourcing the doubt - even the emails - to Palin is certainly novel. Webster also claims that her influence "helps to explain" why Obama 'has shelved plans for legislation to cut back on US emissions".
Christopher Monckton, the sceptic peer, is next - like Palin, his intellectual influence is great. "He plays to full houses in the US and Australia". This is reminiscent of Naomi Klein's theory in No Logo: that free market economics have no force in their own right, but emanate from Bad People (Friedman was hers).
Steve McIntyre is perhaps my favourite. "Feared by climate scientists for his doggedness in hunting down flaws or inconsistencies," Webster says - and this is, apparently, enough to qualify him for the "infamous five" list. Proper science invites refutation. Denouncing people for pointing out "flaws" is not science.
Webster finishes off by saying that sceptics are over 60 "so few will be alive in 20 years' time to see the consequences of their efforts to resist global action on climate change". But this raises another point.
At the launch of Nigel Lawson's excellent think tank (which acknowledges that global warming is real and a problem - a point Webster didn't make, no doubt due to lack of space), I was approached by one of its directors - someone, again, with a distinguished record in public life. "Looking around, most of us are retirement age," he said. "That's because if you're young, and you raise the slightest objection, your career is over. You will be ostracised, and if you have any profile the press will destroy you. So its only my generation, with nothing to lose, who can make these arguments in this hysterical intellectual climate."
Webster's piece proves his point. Even journalists, whose job is normally to probe and question, have become cheerleaders for a cause. There is a mood of hysteria - and before CoffeeHousers go the other way and attack Webster, I'd like to say that he is not one of those journalists. His reporting in Copenhagen and afterwards fully reflected both sides of the debate - which is why it's so strange to see this piece from him today. And even stranger to see it commissioned by a science supplement - when scientific progress depends on the the type of refutation and questioning which Lomborg, Lawson and McIntyre have brought to the debate.
As for Palin and Monckton - Webster wasn't really serious. I hope.
Green Subsidies Will Have Disastrous Effect On UK Economy
Pandering to policy makers who see the future of UK energy defined by expensive "eco-bling" solutions will have disastrous effects for the government and for consumers.
That's the warning from the incoming president of Europe's largest engineering membership body. Dr. Nigel Burton, who formally assumes the presidency of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) this Thursday, will offer credence to the coalition government's position of reviewing the UK's energy framework.
In a call to action for the engineering policy community, Dr. Burton will suggest that there need be no gap in time before money-saving energy policy can be introduced. This could be achieved, he says, by reducing subsidies for some current high-cost, low-saving initiatives.
In his wide ranging inaugural speech, Dr Nigel Burton says some technologies "are a serious misallocation of resources if the principal objective is cost-effective emissions reduction. Early enthusiasm for domestic wind turbines has waned as it has become clear that in general these have no economic value and in some cases consume more electricity than they produce." The subsidies for solar photovoltaics risk repeating the expensive mistakes made in Germany.
Dr Burton argues that "Reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 will require a complete redesign of UK energy production and consumption." He goes on to say that these changes will require investment of an estimated £400 billion by 2050.
One of his key recommendations is to focus on the decarbonisation of electricity production. He also claims that widespread public "conversion to electronic vehicles should be given a high priority." He goes on to make the wider point that "most hopes of achieving the carbon reduction targets rest on increased electrification of the economy and decarbonisation of the power sector." However, that is no easy change as about 78% of electricity generation is currently from coal and gas.
Dr. Burton, makes his opening address at the IET's London headquarters, with a widely anticipated discourse on energy, entitled ''Keeping the lights on - an inconvenient truth'. The lecture will be attended by IET members, policymakers and the public.
Plans to build three new factories to make thousands of giant offshore wind turbines that would create an estimated 60,000 jobs are set to become the latest casualty of the spending review, it has emerged.
The previous government had pledged £60m to upgrade ports, mainly in the north-east, to enable them to handle the next generation of giant turbines for installation off the UK coast.
Siemens and General Electric have announced plans to invest £180m in two new manufacturing facilities in the UK, but say this is conditional on the necessary work on nearby ports. Mitsubishi is also interested in building a third factory.
But the Guardian has learned that the competition inviting ports to bid for the funds is likely to be scrapped. Officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), which is to provide half the £60m required, are still fighting for the funds. However, they have little support from the Department for Business, which would have to find the other half, or from the Treasury.
The energy secretary, Chris Huhne, is understood to be determined to set up a Green Investment Bank, which will have to take public funds for existing renewable and low-carbon schemes, such as the ports, to have sufficient capital.
The Guardian has also learned that the nuclear industry has successfully lobbied the government to safeguard the huge budget to decommission the UK's old reactors, handled by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. This year, about 60% of the NDA's budget – £1.7bn – came from taxpayers via the DECC, making up about 40% of the ministry's entire spending.
In opposition, the Conservatives had wanted to cut about 25% of DECC's funding to the NDA. But after the election, industry executives outlined to ministers the urgency of the clean-up of Britain's nuclear sites, particularly Sellafield in Cumbria. One source said: "We succeeded in scaring David Cameron off." The NDA, which is cutting its own operating budget, could even secure a slightly higher funding settlement than this year.
MPs will debate the ports programme in the House of Commons on Tuesday, with the trade body RenewableUK warning that 60,000 jobs are at stake. No final decision has been made either on the £60m ports plan or the NDA's budget, with the funding settlement for DECC only expected to be formally agreed just before the Treasury's publication of the spending review on 20 October. It is thought that the most that would be available would be funds to upgrade one port.
But the scrapping of the ports competition will sit uneasily with Cameron's declaration that this "would be the greenest government ever". It will also raise questions about the government's commitment to help the economy grow out of recession, in particular by boosting hi-tech exporters. It has already axed an £80m government loan to the engineering firm Sheffield Forgemasters.
Labour wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on empty offices and mobile phones for the most junior civil servants, it will be revealed today.
Sir Philip Green, who has been brought in by the Tories to eradicate government waste, says taxpayers may even have paid for officials’ personal calls on their free BlackBerrys.
The owner of Topshop and BHS will today publish a report exposing how departments sometimes have no idea what they are spending public money on.
Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, who has seen the report, said it showed that financial controls across Whitehall are ‘lamentably bad’. The Government could use the report as justification for a massive round of cuts to departments.
David Cameron caused controversy in August when he appointed Sir Philip to produce the report on how government could make better use of its assets, property and kit. His Lib Dem coalition partners – led by Chris Huhne – were annoyed because the Topshop owner is rumoured to have avoided paying UK tax.
The report will show that public sector bodies are spending £10million a year on empty offices, including space in Victoria, central London, for the Highways Agency.
The billionaire has found that thousands of officials get free BlackBerrys and other mobiles, despite working nine-to-five at their desks. And he says millions of pounds are being wasted because police authorities are paying over the odds for uniforms.
An official said: ‘Sir Philip was also amazed that different police authorities order the same uniforms separately from the same suppliers. They could be saving millions of pounds if they bought in bulk.’
His study will show that different departments are paying massively varying prices for the same furniture, office supplies and computers.Sir Philip also looked at spending on advertising, consultants and PR.
Mr Maude said he would be introducing strict limits and rules on spending. For example, every IT project worth more than £1million would have to be signed off by him.
A Downing Street source said: ‘Sir Philip has found waste on just about every item you could imagine a government department spending money on – desks, computers, pens. You name it, it’s there.’
Sir Philip and his wife are worth more than £4billion. Energy secretary Mr Huhne has said his appointment as advisor had sent the ‘wrong message’. He has said: ‘Philip Green could clearly, if he were to arrange his tax affairs in a different manner and spend rather more time in the country, be paying rather a lot more tax.’
It appears to give elite athletes a tiny extra edge but drinking a lot of it has unpleasant side effects
When Chris Carver ran an ultra-marathon in Scotland last year, which challenges athletes to run as far as possible within 24 hours, he ran 225 kilometres.
Determined to do better in this year's race, Carver added something extra to his training regime: beetroot juice. For a week before the race, he drank the dark purple juice every day. Last month, Carver won it by running 238 kilometres. "The only thing I did differently this year was the beetroot juice," said Carver, 46, a professional runner based near Leeds, in northern England.
He said more exercise would have improved his endurance, but to get the same result he attributes to the juice - an extra 13 kilometres - it would likely have taken an entire year.
Some experts say adding beetroot juice to your diet could provide a performance boost even beyond the blood, sweat and tears of more training.
In two studies conducted at Exeter University on 15 men, Stephen Bailey and colleagues found cyclists who drank a half-litre of beetroot juice several hours before setting off were able to ride up to 20 per cent longer than those who drank a placebo blackcurrant juice.
By examining the cyclists under a scanner that analyses how much energy is needed for a muscle to contract, Bailey and colleagues discovered beetroot juice allows cyclists to exercise using less oxygen than normal.
"The beetroot juice was effective even without any additional training," Bailey said. "It reduces the energy requirements on your muscles so you can last longer." While the beetroot juice was provided free by its manufacturer, Exeter University paid for the research.
Bailey said the high nitrate content of beetroot juice is responsible for its athletic benefits. Scientists aren't exactly sure how it works, but suspect having more nitric oxide in your body, a byproduct of nitrate, helps you exercise with less oxygen. Bailey said the same effects might be possible if people ate more nitrate-rich foods like beetroot, lettuce or spinach.
Bailey and colleagues calculated beetroot juice could translate into a 1 to 2 per cent better race time, a tiny improvement likely only to matter to elite athletes. They are still tweaking the dosage but say athletes should consume the juice a few hours before training so their body has time to digest it. Their latest study was published in June in the Journal of Applied Physiology.
"Drinking beetroot juice is not going to turn a recreational runner into an Olympic champion, but it might make tolerating more exercise easier so you can train more," said Dr Andy Franklyn-Miller, a sports medicine expert at the Centre for Human Performance in London. He was not connected to the research and has not received any funding from beetroot juice makers.
Franklyn-Miller said since people often reach an athletic plateau where more training doesn't help, beetroot juice could give you an extra edge you wouldn't get otherwise. "It's not banned, so there's no reason not to try it," he said. Still, he warned drinking too much of the juice could lead to side effects like abdominal cramps, diarrhea or purple urine.
Previous studies in Britain and the US have found beetroot helps the heart by lowering blood pressure.
Other experts warned manipulating your diet can't replace the benefits of training. "Certain foods can help you maximise the benefits from exercise, not reduce the amount you're doing," said Roger Fielding, director of the Nutrition, Exercise Physiology and Sarcopenia Laboratory at Tufts University. He was not connected to any research on beetroot or any other nutritional supplements.
For serious athletes, Fielding said changing your diet could help. "If a very small improvement is valuable to you, it's possible something like beetroot juice could do that," he said.
Other studies have shown drinking things like pickle juice or having a small carbohydrate snack during a marathon, can prevent cramps and improve performance. Scientists have also found cherry juice, which helps reduce exercise-induced swelling, could be strong enough to reduce some athletes' use of anti-inflammatory pain medication.
Fielding said the benefits of beetroot juice and other foods and drinks could have wider benefits and might one day be used to help elderly people with muscle weakness.
Some elite athletes warned beetroot juice may not be to everybody's taste. "A few of my friends think it's really disgusting," said Colin McCourt, 25, a British runner competing at the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi this month.
In April, McCourt started drinking cherry and beetroot juice, which he credits with helping him train longer and more often. "I feel like I get a benefit from it, even if it's minimal," he told Associated Press Television.
McCourt said he will continue to adjust his training regimen in preparation for the London 2012 Olympics, but plans to maintain his juice habit. "There will be a lot more beetroot juice if my stomach can take it."
Why did the NHS leave a drug abusing schizophrenic free to kill?
After 27 happy years, Barbara Quelch thought she would never have to leave the four-bedroom bungalow in the Berkshire countryside her husband had built as their dream home. Yet today she can’t bear to set foot inside. Even driving down the lane towards it causes her to break into a cold sweat. She’s also overwhelmed by a wave of nausea, almost as if her body has developed an allergic reaction.
The house has been empty for three years, ever since the terrible August morning when her youngest son was found hacked to death in the kitchen.
Landscape gardener Daniel Quelch, 33, had been sleeping in a back bedroom when the house was broken into by drug-abusing paranoid schizophrenic Benjamin Frankum, who had suffered mental health issues ever since he began smoking cannabis in his teens. In a desperate struggle, Daniel was stabbed 82 times.
His was not the only life destroyed in the frenzied attack. Daniel’s three children, now aged 11, eight and five, have been left shattered, traumatised and without a father – the two youngest actually witnessed the murder. His three brothers, Paul, 44, Patrick, 43, and Robert, 42, lost a much-loved sibling. And his parents have been left trying to make sense of what happened.
Since Daniel’s death, Barbara and her 66-year-old husband Ernest, a retired builder, have been living like nomads, with their possessions scattered in the homes of friends and family. Unable to live in their house, which is now tainted by images of Daniel’s brutal death, they have moved five times to different rented accommodation.
Yet the Quelch family has never been given a proper explanation of how a dangerous schizophrenic was allowed to live in the wider community without anyone making sure that he took the medication he desperately needed.
Indeed, when an independent inquiry into the case finally released its overdue report last week, the result was what Barbara describes as ‘a deeply flawed whitewash’. For while the authors identified a ‘number of failings and weaknesses’ in the health authorities, it concluded that these had not led to the stabbing.
Barbara, the 62-year-old managing director of a small advertising company in Maidenhead, is at pains to say she is not looking for compensation or to point the finger of blame.
Instead, she explains with quiet dignity, she wants someone in the NHS to acknowledge publicly that something went horribly wrong and to put measures in place to make sure it never happens again. ‘We just want someone to take responsibility for the errors,’ she explained. ‘I think I would be letting my son down if we gave up and just rolled over.
‘Danny was the youngest of my four sons and in many ways he represented the rest of us. He was a good dad, a good man and a good son. He used to phone me about three times a day. I miss hearing his voice so much and think about him all the time.
‘For a long while I blamed myself for his death. I was in pieces and couldn’t even make a cup of tea. All I could do was sit in a chair and think about him. Sometimes I ask myself why I hadn’t told him to go home – he was only there to look after me, but it’s pointless to keep dwelling on what-ifs.
‘My husband Ernest is suffering more than anyone else. He has lost all of his confidence, is extremely depressed and spent months on medication. It’s heartbreaking and I worry that he might never fully recover. ‘He built that house virtually from scratch and he was so proud of it, but neither of us can go back. It’s still too raw and I fear I’d get flashes of what happened in my mind. It’s funny, I’ve done so much since Danny died to be strong but that’s the one thing I can’t do. I can’t even go into the road.’
Daniel had been staying with his mother on the fateful night only because his father and two brothers had gone on a fishing trip to Canada and he wanted her to be safe. Though a keen angler himself, he had been unable to afford the trip. His three children were with him.
A drug abuser since his teens, Frankum had been in various secure mental health units before being moved to a residential home in Worthing, West Sussex, which also provided him with round-the-clock support.
But three months before the attack in 2007, he was allowed to go to live independently in a housing association home in Hampshire. Barbara says this was a mistake because it did not have staff dedicated to ensuring he continued taking his prescribed drug, Clozapine – a powerful anti- psychotic. ‘If you stop taking it the side-effect is even more powerful psychotic symptoms,’ says Barbara.
Unknown to his caseworker, Frankum stopped taking his medication almost immediately. His behaviour soon became increasingly erratic and he was assessed in early August to determine whether he could be detained under the Mental Health Act. It was decided not to detain him.
Barbara points out that the doctor and a social worker who made the decisions had not treated Frankum before and were not experts in the drug Clozapine. She wonders why Frankum’s long-term psychiatrist, who had been treating him since 2002, had not been called. ‘The psychiatrist told the inquiry that he would have sectioned [locked up] Frankum, regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms, if there was any suspicion that he had stopped taking his medicine,’ she says. Tests later showed Frankum had stopped taking the drugs nine weeks before the killing.
According to Barbara, ‘everyone’ – including Frankum’s family – knew by the beginning of August that he was in a terrible mess. On July 24, a month before the murder, his grandmother Norma had alerted police and his care team about his deteriorating condition. His mother, Diane King, also pleaded with the authorities for her son to be returned to hospital. These, by Barbara’s reckoning, were triggers that should have alerted his care team. But the official alarm was still not raised, even after Frankum disappeared from his shared house in Littlehampton that August.
Several days later, he turned up at his mother’s house near Maidenhead in Berkshire.
While the household was asleep, he crashed his stepfather’s car into the swimming pool, walked across a field with the family’s pet dog and went into Barbara’s house, which was nearby. There he stabbed Daniel as he lay sleeping with his two-year-old son. When the other children in the house, one of whom was a neighbour’s daughter having a sleepover, woke up during the struggle, Frankum put the blood-stained knife down on the bed to fetch them cans of Coca-Cola and yogurt, telling them he was their ‘new daddy’.
Barbara, who had been out walking her dogs when the attack happened, shivers as she recalls: ‘I saw someone through the kitchen window and assumed it was Danny making a cup of coffee. I thought, “Great, he’ll have one for me.” But then this young man walked out the front door, wearing a pair of boxer shorts. He was covered in blood. Weirdly, for an instant I imagined that it was my nephew and he had been in a car crash.’
But as Frankum walked towards her she realised it was a stranger. ‘He said he was from MI5 and to follow him into the house, but I instinctively knew something was dreadfully wrong and locked the car door.’ She dialled 999 and Frankum was arrested at the scene. Although ruled unfit to enter a plea, he was convicted of murder at Reading Crown Court in 2008 and ordered to be detained in Broadmoor Hospital.
Barbara blames NHS workers in West Sussex for failing to recognise that 28-year-old Frankum was a danger to the general public. ‘It will always be a scandal to us that nobody got a firm and proper grip on his mental state and, more importantly, failed to recognise the dangers and risks he clearly posed to others,’ she says. ‘We just thank God that he didn’t harm the children. They are living with us and miss their father terribly.’
She says that initially NHS South East Coast and the Sussex Partnership Trust, who had been responsible for Frankum’s care, had been reluctant to share information with the family. It was only after intervention from local MP Theresa May that an independent inquiry was commissioned from the consultancy Verita – a private consultancy that manages investigations, reviews and inquiries for the NHS, Ofsted and local authorities.
Its investigators said that although they identified a number of failings and weaknesses in the actions of the statutory services during 2007, they could find ‘no link’ between them and Frankum’s actions that morning.
Barbara says: ‘It’s like the system has let us down twice – first by leaving a mentally ill man free to kill and then by refusing to accept that NHS staff made mistakes that caused my son to die. ‘I don’t understand how the Verita report could have concluded that Danny’s death could not have been predicted nor prevented. ‘It counters the findings of a previous internal report by the NHS trust, which was not made public, that blamed individual members of staff for not intervening quickly enough and recommended changes in procedures.’
She insists the new inquiry was deeply flawed. ‘It did not talk to all the possible witnesses, is in part inaccurate, and some of the findings are clearly not substantiated by the available evidence. Our case is that the health authority made arrangements for this young man to move out of a safe and supported environment, into a house where he was virtually unsupervised.
‘He was known to be resistant to taking his medication, yet no system was put in place to ensure he complied, no plan was arranged by mental health services to care for him and no assessment for risk was done before setting him loose into the community.
‘In seven weeks he deteriorated so badly that he couldn’t even sleep in his room. His care worker ignored the fact that this man had started to take illegal drugs, was drinking heavily and a few weeks before his frenzied kill had threatened another resident with a knife.’
The Quelches are law-abiding people who worked hard to carve out a comfortable life for themselves, their four sons and ten grandchildren. They trusted in the system and now find it hard to understand how it could have let them down so badly. Barbara plans to ask Home Secretary Theresa May to look closely at the report. Barbara said: ‘We understand there have been at least 19 killings by people with serious mental illness in Sussex since 1996 – at least two of them since Daniel’s murder. How many more innocent people must die, and their families left to suffer, before the lessons are truly learned?’
She remains critical about the way Verita, NHS South East Coast and the Sussex Partnership Trust have treated her family, and of the length of time it has taken to complete the inquiry. Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, co-author of the Verita report, said that while she was sorry that the findings had added to the family’s pain and distress, ‘we have to say it like we find it’.
Barbara remains unimpressed. ‘We still want answers. Danny should not have died. We can see the failings that led to it happening, even if those on the inquiry do not. ‘It feels like we’ve been to hell and back, but we’re still no nearer to the truth – which might bring about changes in the monitoring of mentally ill people like Frankum. If that were to happen then Danny would not have died in vain.’
Asylum seekers last in the housing queue: Britain's biggest council decides to put its locals first
The largest council in the country is to stop providing homes for asylum seekers – so it can offer the properties to locals. Birmingham City Council said last night that it had seen a surge in the number of existing residents who found themselves homeless in the aftermath of the economic slump.
Currently, nearly 200 homes are handed to asylum seekers who have been sent to the city while their applications are being processed by the UK Border Agency. But the council is to cancel its contract with UKBA so the homes can instead be given to those who hail from the city.
Councillor John Lines, Birmingham’s cabinet member for housing, said the decision was ‘in the interests of local people’. He explained that the council expects nearly 8,000 applications for homes this year alone.
‘Over the last year, we have seen a sharp increase in the number of homeless people in Birmingham and we must help the citizens of this city first and foremost,’ he said. ‘With a long waiting list for homes, we really need all our properties for our people in these difficult economic times. I believe the UK Border Agency should find somewhere else to carry out their duties.’
Mr Lines said delays within UKBA meant hundreds of asylum seekers were obtaining British citizenship while they waited for their cases to be decided. ‘When they have been given citizenship the city of Birmingham has to treat them as citizens and give them one of our rare homes,’ he added. ‘I’m putting hundreds of Brummies in bed and breakfast, local people who possibly through no fault of their own are homeless.
‘I couldn’t sit here and allow the situation where Birmingham people have had to tolerate that whilst the border agency has got up to 200 of my homes for people who have come here for political asylum.’
Under the five-year contract, the council provided 190 properties to asylum seekers, but with turnover it meant up to 1,000 staying in the city every year. The contract - which also involved Wolverhampton, Dudley and Coventry councils - comes to an end in June next year and will not be renewed, Mr Lines said.
Wolverhampton council is also expected to follow suit and stop housing asylum applicants, he added. Birmingham is run by a joint Liberal Democrat and Tory coalition, and is seen as indicating possible policy directions for the Government.
The UK Border Agency’s Regional Director for the Midlands and East of England, Gail Adams, said: ‘We’re disappointed by Birmingham City Council’s decision to withdraw from the West Midlands Consortium. ‘The Consortium’s existing contract will continue until June next year. UKBA will manage the transition to new accommodation in accordance with the terms of the contract.’
One welfare reform that would make Britons happier... and richer
By Peter Hitchens
There's only one lasting, simple welfare reform package this country needs. It goes like this. First, an announcement that nine months from today, all benefits of any kind for new unmarried mothers should cease.
Note the word 'new'. Existing victims of one of the stupidest policies in human history should continue to get their handouts and subsidised homes until their children are grown. It is not their fault, or their children's, that they were misled by weak and wicked politicians into this way of life.
They should not be condemned or harassed. But this state-sponsored assault on marriage should stop. Just to emphasise the point, we should once again distinguish between those who end up as lone parents through no choice of their own and those who choose this state.
We should once again distinguish between those who end up as lone parents through no choice of their own and those who choose this state
We should once again distinguish between those who end up as lone parents through no choice of their own and those who choose this state
The Widow's Pension – scandalously abolished – should be reinstated. Deserted wives should likewise be offered proper support.
Next, the disastrous divorce reforms of the Sixties, which have blasted the lives of millions of deserted children, should be replaced by new rules that make it rather harder to break up a marriage than to end a car-leasing agreement.
And Parliament should overturn the disastrous judge-made laws which have, over the past 50 years, left divorced husbands with almost no rights at all. Within ten years we should be a happier, more orderly and peaceful society, and a much richer one too.
Depriving children of fathers, which seems to have been the policy of the so-called 'centre-left' and 'centre-right' for 40 years, has had a grim and painful effect on almost every aspect of our lives – and has affected almost every topic I touch on in this column.
The costs of trying to patch up the damage are immense, in grief and money. It is as if the whole country has been banging its head hard against a concrete wall for decades. It would be wonderful to stop, as well as being rational and kind. But of course it will not happen.
For all three parties have been taken over by Sixties liberals, who will never do this. Which is why no message of hope came out of the Tory Conference last week, and why the Prime Minister was reduced to attacks on a dead-and-buried Labour Government, and to flogging his gassy, thought-free 'Big Society', under which we're all supposed to come home from work and the long commute, and then rush out to hold up the sky.
What was really wrong with the Tory Party's amateur dramatics was not the incompetence, though there was plenty of that; nor the dismissive callousness towards mothers who take the responsible decision to bring up their own children; nor the impracticable promises to 'clamp down' on a welfare system that is specifically designed to create more clients every day and will grow inexorably if this does not stop.
It was that it has turned its back forever on the married family (while tossing footling token gestures in its direction). And it has sold its soul – and the conservative people in this country – in return for the approval of the BBC and for the empty, pompous joys of office without power.
No wonder there were so few conservatives there, and no wonder Tory Party membership is shrivelling so quickly that the figures are a secret.
Prominent Warmist ambushed: Unable to answer basic questions
- Science abandoned for metaphysics & quasi-mysticism
- Admits Piers Corbyn's (solar based!) extreme events forecasts important
CLIMATE SENSE campaigners - Philip Foster, Graham Capper, Piers Corbyn & Hans Schreuder attended a talk by Prof Mike Hulme (of University of East Anglia and various UN (IPCC) and EU climate panels and bodies) at Emmanuel United Reformed Church Cambridge on 8th Oct. They found he offered no meaningful defence of the science, indeed he gave significant ground and seemed to be moving onto 'higher' things.
Prof Hulme's talk which was part of the Church's 'EARTHED' series* indicated he had largely moved 'beyond' Climate Change and considered the subject more of a metaphysical or quasi-mystical 'sign' or figure of speech for a plan to better approach the problems of a finite planet and its inhabitants in line with his religious beliefs.
Although he considered the question: What does Climate Change demand of us? he could not defend the supposed science which is claimed to be at its core.
Questions and comments were put to him by Philip, Piers and Hans, of ClimateSense which is campaigning for EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE, to the effect that:-
- There is no evidence for the CO2 theory only evidence against.
- ALL the CO2 based predictions of the UN's IPCC have failed,
- World Temperatures have been falling for a decade while CO2 is rising,
- There has been no increase in extreme weather events,
- If you really care about the world then extreme weather events prediction is important and this is being done (eg Russia heatwave etc - see WAnews31**) using solar activity while CO2 tells us nothing; therefore you should be supporting this SCIENCE not a failed theory.
Prof Hulme (First Degree Geography 2(i) Univ of Durham) defended that
(i) it could not be denied that CO2 is an infra-red absorber and emitter and that
(ii) (accepting that temperatures have not risen in a decade despite IPCC predictions) temperatures have increased over the last 50 or so years.
Piers (First degree Physics First class Imperial College London) pointed out that although CO2 is indeed an infra-red absorber and emitter any consequences are completely negated by feedbacks such as extra plant transpiration surface cooling due to extra CO2 which makes plants grow faster****; which is why the data shows CO2 has zero effect in the real world atmosphere.
The temperature point is selective and 'so what?' because fuller data shows CO2 temperatures fluctuating up and down while CO2 was still rising.
Prof Hulme (then) said that dealing with extreme weather events is important whatever the cause and that Piers making and continuing to circulate predictions of extreme weather events is important.
Afterwards a number of people expressed keen interest in what the ClimateSensers had said and took leaflets.
Piers commented: "Prof Hulme offered no meaningful defence of the failed science of the Global Warming lobby and his welcoming my solar-based predictions of extreme weather events is good and an admission of failure of the IPCC project - the whole reason for which was to deal with extreme weather events which were supposedly driven by man-made CO2! Will he now suggest the Govt and UN use these forecasts?
"The Global Warmers are on the run. We now have to take the matter to politicians to turn the run into a rout. The next event is our public Climate Fools Day rally in Parliament*** Wed Oct 27th"
Baccalaureate board probes Wikipedia plagiarism claim
The credibility of the International Baccalaureate (IB) has been questioned amid claims parts of its marking guides were plagiarised from Wikipedia.
The Times Educational Supplement (TES) reports that guides for three history papers are being investigated by the IB's managing board. The guides offer model essays and are used by examiners marking papers.
The A-level alternative is mainly taken in private schools, but ministers say other schools could offer it.
One IB examiner told the TES they were "shocked" to discover what was called "serious examples of academic dishonesty" in the guide for one of the papers. He claimed information from 14 of 24 questions contained sections copied from websites such as Wikipedia.
A teacher who runs training workshops for the IB warned the programme had been put at risk and told the TES they were "livid" and "stunned".
The IB diploma, taken by teenagers, is currently offered in more than 200 UK schools and is becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to A-levels.
An IB spokesman told the TES: "The IB has always insisted on academic honesty throughout our examination system since the organisation was founded. "We have always taken immediate and appropriate action when we discover any violation. "The issue related to the history paper mark scheme is one of those cases, and our investigation of this matter is moving forward but has not yet been completed.
"As a general rule, for each exam session we investigate any and all allegations of malpractice. "This includes deploying technology to screen and scan scripts, and conducting unannounced inspections of schools' arrangements for the examinations to ensure compliance."
More revelations about Britain's insane State school system
Stabbings, threats, red-tape blunders and ‘gruesome’ pupils who terrify classmates. This is the bleak picture of secondary-school life revealed in an internet blog by Katharine Birbalsingh, the teacher who became a star of the Tory Party Conference with a speech about the chaos in the education system.
In the shocking account, Oxford-educated Miss Birbalsingh describes the ‘madness’ in her academy, comparing it to the notorious prison Alcatraz because ‘none of the kids choose to go there’.
She also refers to one of the pupils using the pseudonym Gangster.
The 37-year-old received a standing ovation from Tory delegates in Birmingham last week when she claimed she had abandoned her Marxist beliefs for Conservatism because of poor pupil behaviour.
Now details have emerged of the blog, published on the internet anonymously but for which Miss Birbalsingh has secured a deal with Penguin for a book, which comes out in March.
In it she describes life as a teacher in the state sector, including her current school, St Michael and All Angels Academy, in Camberwell, South London. She writes: ‘I watch Gangster, a year 11 pupil, go into the Head’s office with his mum for a meeting, because on the last day of school in July he stabbed another boy in the playground with a knife.
‘The madness does not stop there. In April three boys were “excluded” for stabbing a boy from another school. At the time, certain paperwork was not filled out. The consequence is that the powers-that-be can now force us to take these three criminals back. Three gruesome, terrifying, influential boys who terrorise everyone around them are coming back and there is nothing we can do.’
A source at the Diocese of Southwark, which has run the academy as a faith school since last year, said it was unaware of the blog, called To Miss With Love, until Friday evening.
The school would not comment on the alleged stabbing as it was said to have happened when the local education authority was still in charge. Scotland Yard was unable to find details of the April incident. But Miss Birbalsingh said she stood by the account although she admitted that she did not confirm the accuracy of incidents that took place before she arrived at the school.
Police figures show there were 21 criminal allegations at the school in the past academic year, including five of actual bodily harm and a rape.
Nevertheless Miss Birbalsingh’s comments have angered colleagues.
School governor Musa Olaiwon said: ‘I am astonished and I can only think that she has a hidden agenda. It’s not a violent school.’ Miss Birbalsingh added: ‘I have no regrets. Not the blog and not the speech. I am a whistleblower. I am passionate about teaching but there is something fundamentally wrong in our system.’
Atheist British Liberal Party leader considering sending his son to exclusive Catholic school -- because their nearby government school is crap -- only fit for "the masses"
Nick Clegg is considering sending his eldest son to one of Britain’s leading Catholic state schools – despite both his atheism and his party’s opposition to faith schools.
The Deputy Prime Minister faces accusations of hypocrisy after he and his Catholic wife Miriam were given a private tour of the London Oratory, where Tony Blair controversially sent his sons.
Headmaster David McFadden told The Mail on Sunday that he believed his school would be a ‘natural choice’ for the couple, who were ‘happy with what they saw’ during their tour last week.
The news that the Liberal Democrat leader is ‘very keen’ on the elite school for his nine-year-old son will dismay many within his party, which has repeatedly made clear its opposition to faith schools.
In a manifesto pledge that was widely seen as a commitment to dismantling faith schools in their current form, the party vowed to ‘ensure that all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith when recruiting staff’.
Elsewhere, the Lib Dems have said the party would halt ‘the establishment of new schools which select by ability, aptitude or faith’ and said it would introduce ‘policies to reduce radically all existing forms of selection’.
The Cleggs live in Putney, South-West London, where their three sons attend Catholic primary schools. Their nearest Catholic secondary school, less than a mile from their home, is John Paul II in Wimbledon. A high percentage of its students are from deprived areas and many have English as a second language. Ofsted ranks the school ‘satisfactory’. However, the London Oratory was classed as outstanding – Ofsted’s highest grade – in its most recent inspection.
In the 2009 examinations, 94.5 per cent of pupils attained five or more GCSEs, at Grade C or above, including English and maths. This compared with 50 per cent at John Paul II and a national average of 46.7 per cent. The school also has a strong record in sciences, with 86 per cent of pupils securing at least two GCSEs, Grade C or above, in science subjects.
But it is more than twice as far away from Mr Clegg’s home as John Paul II school.
Mr Clegg revealed his atheism in a radio interview in December 2007. Asked directly on BBC Radio 5 Live ‘Do you believe in God?’, Mr Clegg replied simply: ‘No.’ Later, he said he had ‘enormous respect’ for people with faith and added: ‘I’m married to a Catholic and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics.
‘However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind.’
Earlier this year Mr Clegg was accused of discovering religion just in time for the General Election when he claimed that Christian values were central to his party’s policies. And during the campaign he was photographed attending Sunday worship at an Anglican church in New Malden, Surrey.
A few days later he was spotted at his local Catholic church, Our Lady of Pity And St Simon Stock in Putney, for his eldest son’s first communion. It later emerged that the boy was recorded on the list of children receiving the sacrament under his Spanish-born mother’s maiden name.
Mr Clegg’s interest in the Oratory will also surprise many within his party, given his recent insistence that faith schools should teach that homosexuality is ‘normal and harmless’. It prompted a furious response from the Family Education Trust, which accused him of showing a ‘woeful lack of respect for faith schools and totally disregarding the deeply held views of parents’. It added: ‘The vast majority of parents do not want their children’s schools to be turned into vehicles to promote positive images of homosexual relationships.’
The London Oratory is linked to one of the most conservative Catholic churches in Britain, the Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, popularly known as the Brompton Oratory and controlled by a group of fathers known as Oratorians.
Three years ago the school cancelled plans to raise money for the Terrence Higgins Trust, one of Europe’s most respected Aids charities, because it did not consider it a suitable recipient of charity from a Catholic institution.
Mr McFadden said yesterday that the Cleggs’ eldest son would be considered for entry in two years’ time if his parents decide to submit an application. ‘We don’t admit children on the jobs of their parents, but I think most parents who apply to the school do so on the basis of the Catholic nature of the school more than anything else,’ he said. ‘I think his wife seems to be the driving force.’
He added that he believed the couple would look at other schools in the area but said: ‘I think it would be a natural choice for them [to come here], yes. ‘They’re just normal parents of Form Five boys who are starting to turn their thoughts to secondary schools.’
Last night a spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister said: ‘Nick Clegg’s sons go to a local school in South-West London. ‘Miriam and Nick have always refused to turn the issue of their children’s education into a political football. ‘He and Miriam are currently considering a number of schools for their eldest son but no decision has yet been made.’
The Oratory, along with other voluntary-aided schools, previously conducted interviews with the parents of prospective pupils and their children to determine the depth of the religious faith, which led to accusations of ‘covert selection’.
However, a change in the law ended the practice and the Oratory – which does not require both parents to be Catholics – now asks for references from parish priests and demands that parents complete a stringent ‘religious inquiry form’.
The four-page document requests details of how frequently the prospective pupils and their parents attend Mass and holy days of obligation. The application form questions how long they have lived in a particular parish and whether they worship weekly, fortnightly, monthly, occasionally, rarely or never. It also asks ‘How does your parish priest know your child?’ and ‘How does your parish priest know you?’
"Judges have been told not to use the word ‘gipsy’ for fear of causing offence. But the ban has been condemned as ‘confusing’ – by a leading gipsy group.
The edict is among a string of terms banned in a new set of guidelines for judges to make sure they comply with equality rules. They are told the word ‘gipsy’ is disparaging and should be replaced by ‘member of a travelling community’.
Last night, however, Joseph Jones, secretary of the Gipsy Council, said: ‘People in the UK are proud to be called gipsies. They don’t mind being called gipsies.
‘It’s not a name that came from the Romany community and some people don’t like it for that reason. But Romany Gipsy is not a term that’s seen as a negative thing. A lot of British people from the Romany Gipsy community are proud to be gipsies – like anyone from any ethnic community would be proud to be.’
Mr Jones said describing gipsies as ‘members of the travelling community’ was ‘too simplistic’.The problem with that is it confuses the issue by mixing people who are in an ethnic group with people who are not,’ he said.
The edict comes in a summary of the Equal Treatment Bench Book, published by the judges’ training body, the Judicial Studies Board.
The manual also warns about using the word ‘British’. It states: ‘Use of the term as a synonym for White, English or Christian is incorrect and unacceptable.’
Other words banned are ‘invalid’, ‘mental handicap’ and ‘wheelchair-bound’. Instead judges should use ‘disabled person’, ‘learning difficulties’ and ‘a wheelchair-user’.
Intensive care crisis: Britain has fewer beds than almost every other nation
Britain has the fewest intensive care hospital beds in the developed world – putting patients’ lives at risk in the event of a terrorist atrocity or major disaster, researchers warned yesterday.
We are lagging far behind our European neighbours, both in terms of ICU beds per 100 hospital beds and ICU beds per 100,000 of population. The NHS has only 3.5 ICU beds per 100,000 people – seven times fewer than European leaders Germany, which has 24.6.
Only Trinidad and Tobago (2.1), and Sri Lanka (1.6) have fewer beds per 100,000 of population, says a review published by The Lancet journal. In the UK, official figures put the total number of critical care beds at around 3,400.
Critical care specialist Dr Gordon Rubenfeld, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto – who carried out the review – said: ‘It is clear that the UK is at the low end of ICU bed capacity, and thus would have decreased ability to cope with a large scale disaster with many critically injured casualties.’
The UK also devotes less space to intensive care with 1.2 ICU beds to every 100 in a hospital – the least of all the European countries surveyed.
Intensive care specialist Dr Kevin Gunning, a council member of the Intensive Care Society who works at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, said: ‘The problem is the UK is always playing catch-up.
Dr Rubenfeld’s review says acts of terrorism, natural disasters and pandemics of illness such as swine flu and the respiratory disease SARS ‘can quickly overwhelm local healthcare infrastructure even with mild to moderate numbers of casualties’.
The review pointed out that critical care is a resource many assume will always be available in high-income countries, but is not given the priority it deserves by health-policy makers.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said: ‘The number of beds has increased and continues to increase but more does need to be done in some areas.
‘It is for local healthcare commissioners and providers to assess the number of critical care beds needed locally to meet the demands of their population.’
Pregnant Muslim ordered to remove her veil in British court because magistrates can't see her face
A pregnant Muslim woman was ordered by magistrates to remove her veil while she gave evidence against her violent ex-partner yesterday. Georgina Richards, 36, initially refused for religious reasons but reluctantly agreed when magistrates said they might not accept her evidence if they could not see her 'facial expressions'.
The case at Leicester Magistrates Court was held up for over an hour while magistrates agreed to hear her evidence from behind a screen.
Chairman of the bench Lawrence Faulkner told her: 'We need to see a person’s facial expressions to assess the evidence they are giving. 'If you refuse to remove your veil, we may not be able to accept your evidence.'
Miss Richards, who is heavily pregnant, gave evidence against her ex-partner Ismail Mangera, 30, from behind a screen in the courtroom.
Mr Mangera was found guilty of punching Miss Richards in the face and scrawling abuse on her front door.
But after the hearing, Miss Richards hit out at the magistrates for forcing her to remove her veil. She said: 'I was a bit unhappy that he told me to take my veil off. 'They put screens up next to me but I didn’t really want to do it. 'But I thought the case would be dropped if I didn’t take it off. 'It just made me feel uncomfortable. They wanted to see the expression on my face but I don’t think it really matters, I think I could have done it with my veil on.' 'Now I just feel relieved that I’ve said what I’ve got to say.'
Miss Richards told the court her religion states she should not remove her veil in front of men in public.
Magistrates heard that Mr Mangera attacked Miss Richards, mother to three of the couple’s children and eight months pregnant with their fourth, between April 1 and April 30.
The magistrates warned Mangera he was facing jail. Sentencing was deferred until October 20 to allow a probation report to be produced.
The rise of Britain's 'Shameless generation' after drop in court cases under Labour government
The horrifying scale of benefit fraud by the ‘Shameless’ generation can be revealed by the Daily Mail today. During Labour’s final two years in power, prosecutions for false claims slumped and overpayments soared. The figures come during a week in which the Tories pledged to clamp down on abuse of the welfare system by introducing a £500-a-week payments cap.
Jeremy Hunt, the party’s Culture Secretary, added to the controversy by suggesting the workshy should stop having children if they could not afford them.
Now Freedom of Information requests have found that prosecutions of benefit cheats have fallen by 11 per cent in the past year, while cases of overpayments have gone up by 13 per cent. The statistics make a mockery of the anti-fraud slogan at the Department for Work and Pensions: ‘It’s not if we catch you; it’s when.’
Cases of overpayment soared to 499,204 in 2009/10 compared with 439,966 the year before. But only a tiny number of the fraudsters are taken to court. In 2009/10, just 7,765 cases led to prosecutions compared with 8,701 in 2008/9. The amount of money recovered has risen over the past year from £280million to £294.4million but by far less than the estimated amount of overpayment.
Last night, Emma Boon of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: ‘These figures show the dire state of our welfare system. Taxpayers’ money has been leaking out of the cracks at HMRC, with overpayments rising at an alarming rate. ‘Their problems have to be addressed immediately to stop our money that’s meant to help the poor simply being wasted.’
Philip Hollobone, Tory MP for Kettering, said: ‘These figures are a sad indictment of Britain’s benefits system as a result of the mismanagement of the Labour government.’
Welfare reform dominated the past week’s Conservative conference, with Chancellor George Osborne coming under attack for cuts to child benefit which penalised stay-at-home mums. He has proposed a £26,000 a year cap on welfare payments – in line with the average take home wage.
Lord Steel, Liberal leader from 1976 to 1988, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he sympathised with plans to tackle welfare dependency. ‘All MPs have had people come into their surgeries who say their next door neighbours are living off the state,’ he said. ‘When I was an MP there were people who used to deliberately get themselves pregnant in order to jump the housing queue – and that is reprehensible both from the point of view of the parents and the children.’
The Leftist head-teacher who sent home the teacher who spoke out at British Conservative conference
Attacks on free speech are routine for Leftists
The head who sent home a teacher for speaking about school failures at the Tory conference was an ardent Blair supporter, it is said.
Katharine Birbalsingh had electrified the conference with a searing account of Britain’s ‘broken’ state schools. But her performance horrified the headmistress at her South London school, who is reported to have described Tony Blair as ‘the most wonderful prime minister in the world’.
And last night, in a highly unusual intervention which reflected the tensions within the educational establishment, the school issued a statement criticising Miss Birbalsingh for misrepresenting her school, insulting teachers and exploiting pupils.
Miss Birbalsingh, 37, joined St Michael and All Angels Church of England Academy only last month as deputy head. But when she returned from the Tory conference in Birmingham, she was told by the school’s executive head, Dr Irene Bishop, that she should work from home ‘while her position was reviewed’.
However, yesterday, as parents rallied round the French teacher, insisting that staff should be free to speak their minds, the school said she could return to work on Monday.
Miss Birbalsingh, who was educated at state schools before going to Oxford University, had been the surprise star of the Tory conference, earning a standing ovation. She condemned a ‘culture of excuses’ and attacked a system that is ‘broken’ because it ‘keeps poor children poor’.
The former Marxist told of her ‘devastation’ at being kept out of the classroom while she waited to hear if she had been formally suspended or sacked by Dr Bishop, who also runs St Saviour’s and St Olave’s School, in South London, which was used to launch Labour’s 2001 election campaign.
Dr Bishop reportedly described Tony Blair as ‘the most wonderful Prime Minister in the world’ after joining him on stage as he announced his bid for re-election, although she later denied having said that and admitted she feared the school had been ‘used by Labour’.
Mothers wrongly told their healthy unborn babies had died by NHS horror Hospital
The NHS doctors were ready to kill the little girl above
Two women were told that their unborn babies were dead after a hospital missed their healthy heartbeats in routine scans. Joanna Barro, 25, was devastated when doctors said they were ‘100 per cent sure’ her baby was dead at eight weeks.
She was preparing to go through a miscarriage procedure a week later when a shocked nurse found a heartbeat and told her the pregnancy was fine. Miss Barro went on to give birth to a healthy baby girl, Ruby.
Earlier this week, Brighton’s Royal Sussex County Hospital was forced to apologise to Sofia Taylor after it advised her she had lost her child at nine weeks. Mrs Taylor, 22, told how she refused to accept her baby was dead and demanded a second scan which showed her pregnancy progressing normally.
She said: ‘The minute they told me the baby was dead I didn’t believe them. It was mother’s intuition. I insisted on having another test. They weren’t happy about it and said I really should have a termination. ‘If I had listened to them I would have lost my baby. It doesn’t bear thinking about.’
Her husband Chris, 27, said: ‘The second doctor said about 45 per cent of women told their baby has no heartbeat opt to have an immediate termination. ‘What if they have also been victims of a terrible mistake?’
The Brighton hospital trust’s chief executive Duncan Selbie wrote to the couple to apologise, saying Mrs Taylor should have been offered a second scan before she was told of any potential problem with her pregnancy. He said: ‘Human errors of this sort are extremely unusual within the service.’
But Miss Barro, a single mother, says she is still suffering nightmares about losing her baby three years after the same department put her through an almost identical ordeal.
She said: ‘I was told my baby was dead and had been for a while. I was absolutely devastated. I kept asking, are you sure, are you sure? But two doctors said they were 100 per cent sure, gave me a miscarriage leaflet and told me to go home and wait for nature to take its course. ‘I remember my partner Dan and I just cried and cried. ‘I did not think it was the kind of thing doctors could make a mistake about – when they told me my baby was dead I believed them.’
When she returned to the hospital for the miscarriage procedure she demanded a further scan. She said: ‘I remember the nurse just looked really shocked and said: “I wouldn’t have the procedure if I was you – your baby has a heartbeat.” I was so happy. But I was also angry at the hell they had put me through.’
Ruby, now three, was born seven months later weighing a healthy 7lb 4oz. Cuddling her yesterday, Miss Barro said: ‘I call her my miracle baby because I really did think I had lost her.’
Royal Sussex County Hospital chief executive Duncan Selbie confirmed Miss Barro had been told she had lost her baby but said she was invited back for a repeat scan a week later. He said: ‘I am extremely sorry for the distress this must have caused Miss Barro in the early stages of her pregnancy.’
Mothers-to-be usually have a first antenatal check-up between six to eight weeks to confirm a pregnancy and to check if the foetus is alive by looking for a heartbeat.
Another scan takes place at about ten to 14 weeks to assess the risk of Down’s syndrome and other conditions. A further check will be made at 20 to 23 weeks to look in detail at the baby’s development.
The Royal Sussex County Hospital was the subject of a damning Panorama undercover expose in July 2005, when senior nurse Margaret Haywood secretly filmed appalling conditions in acute wards where she was working. At the time, the hospital had the lowest rating of zero stars. The hospital said it had reviewed its procedures after the programme and put new care standards in place.
Last year the Patient Environment Action Teams rated it as good after assessing cleanliness, control of infection rates and dignity afforded to patients. But in March, the hospital was forced to make an apology when two patients died after staff ignored warnings over their conditions.
The British bureaucrat who still refuses to say sorry: Chief of NICE won't accept drug stance was wrong
The chief executive of the rationing body which overturned its own ban on Alzheimer’s drugs refused yesterday to apologise for denying the treatment to patients. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) performed a U-turn earlier this week after a three-year campaign by the Daily Mail to make three drugs available to hundreds of thousands with early stages of the disease.
But its chief executive Sir Andrew Dillon insisted yesterday that the original decision could not have been changed in any event. He said that clinical trial findings over the last three years had ‘subtly’ changed the evidence in favour of using drugs earlier in the course of the disease.
The ban that was controversially imposed in 2007 meant three drugs – Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl – could be used only by patients with moderate disease. But new draft guidance will allow doctors to prescribe these drugs to patients with mild symptoms, rather than waiting for them to deteriorate.
For the first time the drug Ebixa is also approved for severely ill patients which could save thousands from taking anti-psychotic medication – dubbed the ‘chemical cosh’.
Thousands of campaigners marched on the streets against the controversial decision, condemned by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Geriatrics Society.
A legal challenge was mounted by the Alzheimer’s Society, partly funded by £230,000 raised in a week by Daily Mail readers, incensed over the ban on drugs costing just £2.50 a day. The action eventually resulted in the computer model for the restrictions being released, which campaigners believe helped overturn the ban.
However, Sir Andrew told interviewers yesterday that the only thing Nice could do in 2007 was impose restrictions. He said it would ‘be lovely’ if Nice had ‘perfect knowledge’ of all the drugs it assessed from the start, but insisted the original decision was based on the knowledge available then. In the last three years, he said, there had been more clinical trial data and information about the benefits and costs of the drugs. ‘In 2007 we were not confident, and now we are,’ he said.
Sir Andrew said evidence can ‘move subtly’ and clinical studies had ‘reinforced’ the case for using drugs at an early stage in the disease.
When asked if Nice had got it wrong, Sir Andrew said ‘No’ and refused to apologise for the ‘tragedy’ of many newly diagnosed sufferers going without drugs for the last three years.
Professor Clive Ballard, director of research at the Alzheimer’s Society, said ‘no substantive new evidence’ had emerged in that time. He claimed the case was as strong then for using drugs in early disease as it is now. 'We are glad that common sense has prevailed and they have looked at the evidence in a more sensible way,’ he added.
Although the drugs are not a cure, up to half of patients respond with ‘life-changing’ improvements.
Subject to an appeal, the change in policy could be confirmed early next year in England and Wales, while Scotland and Northern Ireland have not been bound by the restrictions.
British police are ordered to protect 'Doggers' -- homosexuals engaging in public sex
Britain sure has lost it
Police have been ordered to stop anyone taking in part in illegal outdoor sex being abused or verbally taunted as it can cause them to suffer post traumatic stress.
An extraordinary new Hate Crime Guidance Manual has been handed to officers telling them to arrest anyone suspected of committing a hate crime against those engaged in ‘dogging’.
Although it notes that outdoor sex can have an ‘impact on the quality of life of people using these locations for leisure pursuits’ - for example dog walkers and tourists - the rights of those cottaging, cruising or dogging must be taken into account by officers.
It states that even though ‘outdoor sex is unlawful’, people who take part in it still have rights which protect them from becoming victims of hate crime.
The manual, issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland last week, states that people who take part in open-air sex are ‘more susceptible to hate crime’ and can suffer ‘post traumatic stress and depression’ if they are abused, Police Review revealed.
The 60-page guide states: 'The issues surrounding public sex environments can be complex and consequently provide a challenge for the police. 'Whilst complaints regarding consensual public sex must be considered and responded to, it must also be noted that people engaging in such activity are potential targets for hate crime perpetrators.'
It states that doggers can be ‘reluctant to report victimisation in outdoor sex environments’ and says this is ‘due to a misconception that the police will primarily be interested in why they were there, as opposed to tackling hate or prejudice motivated crime’.
It goes on to say that hate crime can have a ‘lasting impact on individual victims’, adding that ‘crime targeted at an individual’s core identity also has the potential to undermine entire communities and damage community confidence in the police’.
The guide adds: 'Research has shown that any victim of crime can suffer symptoms of depression, anger, anxiety and post traumatic stress. 'Victims of non-biased crime can experience a decrease in these symptoms within two years (but) victims of bias, or hate crime, may need as long as five years to overcome their ordeal.'
In 2008, the then deputy chief constable of Lancashire Police Michael Cunningham - now the Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police - issued guidance cautioning officers against ‘knee-jerk’ reactions when dealing with doggers and saying they should only be prosecuted as a ‘last resort’.
The most recent changes were made to the ‘Managing Public Sex Environments’ policy last month, and top brass say the policy has been ‘completely re-written’ following consultation with relevant groups and ‘new Association of Chief Police Officer guidance’.
It states that the new policy applies to all cops dealing with ‘public sex environments’, adding that the policy aims to ‘improve our effectiveness and the quality of service provided by the police service when policing public sex environments’ to ensure a ‘consistent, well managed, proportionate and professional approach to public sex environments’ is taken by officers.
The manual says that ‘human rights of all citizens’ must be protected and that the policy covers ‘any open space, public or private that is habitually used for the purpose of engaging in consensual same sex and opposite sex, sexual activity’, including public toilets.
It states that previous policing methods had ‘adversely affected’ the relationship between cops and people having outdoor sex and that the old methods ‘discouraged users from reporting crime to police’, leading to many unreported robberies, assaults and verbal abuse of doggers.
Les Gray, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, told Police Review magazine today: 'I do not believe that our officers require a 60-page booklet to tell them that we should carry out our duties without fear, favour, malice or ill will. 'No matter what the circumstances our officers will always do their upmost to prevent crime in the first instance and where a crime has been committed assist the victim and endeavour to detect the culprit.
'Just because someone engages in unusual or different activities it does not preclude them from the protection of the law. 'By the same token it doesn’t mean that they will get more protection by doing so.'
One Kent officer, who did not want to be named, said: 'So now we are being told not just to turn a blind eye to public indecency, we are being told to arrest anyone who has anything bad to say against people taking part in outdoor sex.
'It’s getting to the stage that people who break the law have more rights than the normal man or woman on the street, and as for them suffering from post traumatic stress, what about the people who witness these exhibitions and are shocked by it? What about their rights.'
Hugh McKinney, of the National Family Campaign, said: 'There is a good reason that we have laws against these types of sexual behaviour in public, namely that they are deemed to be beyond what is acceptable to most reasonable people. 'Is it too much for us to expect the police to enforce the law? After all, they’re the only ones who can.'
Chief Constable Ian Latimer, of Scotland’s Northern Constabulary - which patrols the Scottish Highlands - said: 'Hate crime divides our communities and has a devastating effect on victims, their family members and the wider community.
'The manual, developed in consultation with partner agencies and victim support charities gathers best practice and provides officers with guidance on how recognise and investigate hate crime to secure the desired outcome and results for all parties involved.'
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 those who take part in ‘dogging’, where couples meet up for exhibitionist outdoor sex, and cottaging, where men meet for sex in public lavatories, face arrest for outraging public decency, voyeurism and exposure.
Cosseted British bureaucrats to lose some of their privileges
Millions of public sector staff face working until they are in their 70s to fund gold-plated pension schemes branded 'inherently unfair' by a hard-hitting report, it was claimed last night.
Labour former minister Lord Hutton said state workers – who can currently retire as young as 55 – will be forced to pay more and receive less on retirement. He gave ministers the green light to demand extra pension contributions from staff from as early as April. And his interim report also pronounced the end of final salary schemes – sparking threats of strikes from the unions.
Public sector pensioners could suffer some of the pain that their counterparts in the private sector are already facing. Critics say there is pensions apartheid between the public and private sectors.
Lord Hutton was asked to investigate the public sector pensions crisis by the Coalition. Taxpayers are currently liable for between £770billion and £1trillion in payouts and the gap between annual employee contributions and the promised rewards is running at £10billion a year.
Lord Hutton said that when he published his final recommendations next spring it is his ‘intention’ to suggest that the retirement age should rise in line with life expectancy projections. He said it was ‘logical’ to bring the public sector retirement age into line with the state pension age, which the Government has already said will rise to 68.
Lord Hutton will publish a formula linking public sector retirement age and longevity to ensure civil servants don’t spend nearly 30 years living on pensions.
He said he was ‘nervous’ about fixing a new retirement date for Britain’s six million public sector workers ‘to a definite age because longevity is marching ahead’. He added: ‘I think we’ve got to look at this as a matter of urgency.’
In 1841, someone who reached the age of 60 could expect to live to 74. Today, they will typically die at the age of 84. By 2055, a 65-year-old female public sector worker is predicted to live until she is nearly 95. A man will typically get to 92.
John Prior, of pensions firm Punter Southall, said he predicts the normal retirement age will get to ‘70 at least’. He said: ‘Just because a policeman can’t be on the beat at 55 does not mean that they cannot be doing some other job.’
In a further blow for state workers, they will be forced to start paying more of their salary into a pension scheme, which many currently get virtually for free.
Lord Hutton said the low-paid, understood to be those earning around £21,000, should be protected from higher payments. The Armed Forces, who do not pay a penny into their pension, will also be ring-fenced in the short-term.
But Lord Hutton said there is ‘a strong case’ to increase other contributions for a pension scheme which he yesterday branded as totally unaffordable – and getting more expensive every day.
In his 170-page report, he said that Britain has no choice but to change State workers’ pension schemes, or leave future taxpayers with an unaffordable burden.
He said: ‘It is my clear view that the figures in this report make it plain that the status quo is not tenable.’
That decision gives Chancellor George Osborne political cover to demand higher payments from state workers during the public spending review later this month. He could raise £1billion for every 1 per cent he adds to the payments. Mr Osborne said the report was ‘impressive’ and called for a ‘consensus’ on how to solve the crisis.
In a third blow, the report spells the end for lucrative final salary pensions, which promise to pay workers a percentage of their earnings on retirement. Lord Hutton said they are ‘inherently unfair’ and must be scrapped and replaced with cheaper alternatives, such as a ‘career average’ scheme or one which abandons the link to earnings entirely.
The report lays bare the bleak facts about public sector pensions in a country where less than a third of private sector workers get a company pension. Public sector workers are able to look forward to an average workplace pension of £7,841 – but the majority of private sector workers get nothing.
The report also lifts the lid on the gold-plated retirements of an exclusive bunch of State workers. Nearly 3,000 get a pension of ‘at least £67,000’ a year, with eight in ten of them working for the Health Service. A further 34,252 receive a pension worth ‘at least £37,000’.
By comparison, the majority of single pensioners in Britain, mostly retired private sector workers and stay-at-home mothers, are being forced to survive on pension income of ‘less than £27’ a day.
Lord Hutton’s plans triggered outrage among unions and are likely to lead to strikes. Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union, said: ‘This attack on the people who make this country tick will spark a furious backlash and will drive millions on to the streets in French-style protests to stop the great pensions robbery.’
Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, said the report represents a ‘grossly unfair’ attack on State workers ‘drawn up on behalf of a Cabinet of millionaires’.
Deputy head who dared attack the British government school system is sent home from school
A teacher who laid bare the chaos in the state education system has been ordered out of the classroom by her school. Katharine Birbalsingh is facing disciplinary action for daring to speak out at the Conservative Party conference this week about the shambles in state secondaries.
The Daily Mail understands that Miss Birbalsingh, 37, was made to work from home after other senior staff at her London academy feared her speech on Tuesday created too much negative publicity. Miss Birbalsingh said she was ‘devastated’ at being kept out of the classroom while she waits to hear if she is formally suspended or sacked.
The former Marxist – who was state-educated before going to Oxford University – voted Tory for the first time in this year’s general election.
A French teacher and deputy head at St Michael and All Angels Church of England Academy in Camberwell, South London, she was the surprise star at the Tory conference. She revealed how bad behaviour and lack of discipline in schools ‘blinded by Leftist ideology’ stopped staff from teaching children.
Her intervention against a ‘broken’ system which ‘keeps poor children poor’ earned her a standing ovation. She took up her latest job a month ago and said last night that her criticisms were not aimed at her new school. But staff felt that she had damaged the school’s reputation – an accusation that she denies.
Miss Birbalsingh said yesterday: ‘I’m devastated by this. ‘My whole life is about helping children fulfil their potential, particularly those in less privileged areas, and I love my school. ‘All I wanted to do was to highlight the barriers that stand in the way of improving education in Britain. ‘I just want this issue to be resolved and to get back to teaching again.’
However, Miss Birbalsingh did not blame the school for over-reacting. ‘It is not the school or the head’s fault,’ she added. ‘They are shackled by the system which bans teachers from having freedom of speech.
‘In my conference speech, I was not attacking my school directly – I have only been there for a few weeks. ‘I was emphasising my ten years plus of experience in classrooms.’ She added: ‘I feel awful. I have been forced to choose between keeping my school happy on the one hand and my principles on the other. ‘I shouldn’t be torn in that kind of way.’
Miss Birbalsingh was asked to ‘work from home’ for the rest of the week when she arrived at school on her return from the conference in Birmingham.
Her fate will be decided by executive head Irene Bishop and the school’s board of governors and sponsors. Last night no one from the school could be reached for comment. As an academy, the school is free from local authority or government control. But Miss Birbalsingh has the backing of education secretary, Michael Gove, who asked her to speak at the conference.
A source close to Mr Gove said: ‘Katharine gave an inspiring speech which was one of the highlights of the conference. She’s clearly passionate about raising standards for all, committed to her school and just wants to do the best by the children. ‘Let’s hope the situation will be resolved as soon as possible.’
In her rousing speech, Miss Birbalsingh said many of the changes necessary to improve schools required ‘Right-wing thinking’.
One in six pupils are behind in three Rs when they leave British grade schools
One in six children are effectively going backwards at primary school, new figures revealed today. Almost 100,000 youngsters achieved worse results in the three Rs at 11 than in comparable tests at age seven.
The figures suggest many pupils are simply left ‘coasting’ in large numbers of primary schools. Boys are more likely to fall behind in English and girls in maths.
Today's Department of Education statistics are, however, an improvement on last year's figures.
However ministers admitted it was a ‘very real concern’ that one in six youngsters was failing to make the expected progress in the basics between the ages of seven and 11. Nick Gibb
Schools Minister Nick Gibb said: 'We need to ensure that those who are doing well when they are seven are stretched to their full potential'
They said six-year-olds would sit a short reading test to identify problems earlier under Coalition plans to boost English standards.
Schools Minister Nick Gibb said: ‘Thousands of children are condemned to struggle at secondary school and beyond unless they get the fundamentals of reading, writing and maths right at an early age. ‘We also need to ensure that those who are doing well when they are seven are stretched to their full potential.’
The figures chart the progress made by tens of thousands of pupils after sitting SATs tests in English and maths at age seven. Youngsters who achieve ‘level two’ at age seven are considered to have made satisfactory progress at primary school if they go on to gain a ‘level four’ grade in SATs at 11. ‘Level four’ signifies that by the time they start secondary school, they can grasp the point of a story, write extended sentences using commas and add, subtract, multiply and divide in their heads.
Today’s figures show that 16 per cent of youngsters failed to make the expected two levels of progress in English and 17 per cent in maths. This was an improvement on last year’s 18 per cent in English and 19 per cent in maths. But the stats suggest that nearly 100,000 youngsters are still failing to fulfil the potential they showed at seven.
Usually nearly 600,000 youngsters take SATs but this year just 385,000 did so because two teaching unions boycotted the tests in May.
In English, 18 per cent of boys failed to progress at the rate expected, against 14 per cent of girls. Last year the gender gap was just three percentage points. Meanwhile, 18 per cent of girls failed to fulfil the potential they showed at seven in maths, against 17 per cent of boys. However girls, who were two points behind last year, appear to be catching up.
Coalition measures aimed at boosting attainment include greater prominence in the curriculum for synthetic phonics, the back-to-basics reading scheme that first involves learning the letter sounds of the alphabet and then blending them together.
Mr Gibb added: ‘Getting the basics right at the start of primary school is vital which is why we are putting synthetic phonics at the heart of teaching children to read. ‘We are introducing a short reading test for six-year-olds and we are committed to driving up standards of numeracy at primary school, and doubling the number of highly skilled graduate teachers in our schools, including in primary schools for the first time.’
But Vernon Coaker, shadow schools minister, said: ‘I cannot understand why the government is trying to spin these figures by doing down the achievements of children and the hard work of their teachers.’
British Alzheimer's sufferers will finally get vital £2.50 drugs banned by NICE
Hundreds of thousands of people in the early stages of Alzheimer’s will no longer be denied crucial drugs that slow the devastating disease. A three-year campaign by the Daily Mail ended in victory yesterday when the NHS drug rationing body reversed a ban that had been universally condemned by doctors, patients and their families.
Patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s - who knew they were losing their minds - faced the scandalous situation of waiting for their condition to deteriorate before being prescribed the three drugs.
Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl cost only £2.50 a day, but the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ruled in 2007 that they can be used only by patients in moderate - not early - stages of the disease.
This prompted a legal challenge partly funded by £230,000 raised in one week by Mail readers, which forced NICE to reveal its calculations behind banning the drugs.
Now the rationing body has succumbed to pressure and issued new draft guidelines which will allow doctors to prescribe the treatments to patients with mild symptoms.
The U-turn also means the drug Ebixa can be prescribed for the first time to severely ill patients. This will save thousands from taking antipsychotic medication – dubbed the ‘chemical cosh’ – which is not proven to work and can cause dangerous side-effects such as strokes.
Around 465,000 people live with Alzheimer’s in the UK and 62,000 people are diagnosed each year, yet fewer than 50,000 patients are currently prescribed drugs.
The Mail campaigned vigorously with the Alzheimer’s Society, and with the help of physicians and celebrities, to end the scandal which affected some of the most vulnerable in our society.
Although the drugs are not a cure, up to half of patients respond with ‘life-changing’ improvements. Their symptoms are lessened and the progression to dementia is slowed, trials have proven.
Research also shows that those who begin the drug treatment at a later stage never catch up with those who began earlier, suggesting prompt intervention leads to an improved long-term prognosis.
Nice previously claimed the NHS could not afford to offer drugs to all eligible patients, but has now carried out a review using a different computer model to assess their cost-effectiveness. This time it concludes the benefits are worthwhile, when compared with full-time care which can cost up to £40,000 a year.
The change in policy could be confirmed early next year in England and Wales, where the ban applies.
The potential cost to the NHS is unclear because thousands of patients could now ask for re-assessment, to add to the newly diagnosed.
At present the NHS spends around £100million a year on anti-dementia drugs. A Government estimate says using Aricept for mild disease would add only £5.7million next year. It says this would be offset by delays in patients needing long-term care. And the drug will lose its patent in 2012 which means the price will fall as cheaper generics are supplied to the NHS.
Professor Clive Ballard, director of research at the Alzheimer’s Society, said doctors had faced an ethical dilemma for the past three years: Knowing there was treatment available that they were banned from prescribing. He said: ‘If this guidance is issued, doctors will no longer have to watch people deteriorate without being able to treat them.’
Professor Ballard is convinced some doctors had been reluctant to diagnose the disease because of the restrictions, while patients might also have delayed seeking help. He paid tribute to the Mail readers who raised £230,000 towards the court battle, which failed to overturn the ban but forced Nice to disclose key information.
For the price of a cup of coffee these drugs can help many people continue to play with their grandchildren or recognise their loved ones. You can’t put a value on these benefits.’ Gordon Wilcock, professor of clinical geratology at Oxford University, said ‘common sense’ had prevailed and NHS patients would at last get help – not just those who could afford a private prescription.
Nice’s chief executive, Sir Andrew Dillon, said: ‘Our increased confidence in the benefits and costs associated with the use of the three drugs for treating mild and moderate stages of the disease has enabled us to make a positive recommendation for their use in mild disease.’
Fewer than one in ten Alzheimer’s patients are prescribed anti-dementia drugs to treat their symptoms, yet clinical trials clearly show the benefits of early treatment.
Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl compensate for low levels of a key chemical in the brain. They stop breakdown of the enzyme acetylcholinerase, which plays a crucial role in memory and helps nerve cells communicate.
When they work the drugs ‘lift the fog’ for patients who remember names, or how to make a cup of tea, with effects lasting up to two years on average. Aricept, which costs £75 a month, is the most popular.
Another, Ebixa, at £69 a month, has never before been recommended for routine use on the NHS. It is the first in a new class of drugs which appear to have a protective effect, by blocking a messenger chemical that increases damage to brain cells.
A long-term study found Ebixa restored the ability, for at least a year, of severely ill patients to do routine daily activities and feel more alert. In the U.S. and France, clinicians routinely combine a drug such as Aricept with Ebixa to get maximum protection for patients.
Unemployed British man forced to attend 'Back To Work' seminar instead of real job interview to avoid losing benefits
After losing his job, David Sharp was delighted to have a second interview for a sales post and was confident about winning the role. But he claims he had to pull out of the interview thanks to bizarre rules that meant he could not miss a 'Back To Work' class on the same day. Job centre staff warned Mr Sharp, 33, from Huyton, Merseyside, that if he missed the seminar he would lose his benefit money.
Faced with the possibility of having neither a new job nor his dole money, the former bingo caller was forced to cancel his interview. Mr Sharp said: 'I had only been signing on for a few weeks when I got in the running for a business and marketing role in town. 'I did well, but the second interview was at the same time as a course at the Huyton job centre.
'I rang the national 0845 telephone number and was given an ultimatum. Either I attended the course or my benefits would be cancelled. 'I tried to change the interview and they said 'no'. I then offered to show documented proof of my interview to the job centre, but that was no good.'
He added: 'I went on the course and it was pretty mundane, about how to get in touch with employers all stuff I had already done to get the interview. 'I am disappointed with Job Centre Plus. They should have been doing a lot more to help me. 'They stopped me getting a job to put me on a 'Back To Work' course. It was very counterproductive and now I am still unemployed.'
A spokesman for the Department for work and pensions said Mr Sharp had not spoken directly to the Job Centre Plus in Huyton. But they could not rule out the 33-year-old was given incorrect advice over the phone.
West is being 'outspent, outmanoeuvred and out-strategised' by Islamic extremism, warns Blair
The West is being 'outspent, outmanoeuvred and out-strategised' by violent Islamic extremism, Tony Blair has warned.
The former prime minister said that there had been a failure to challenge the 'narrative' that Islam was oppressed by the West which was fuelling extremism around the world.
He said too many people accepted the extremists' analysis that the military actions taken by the West following the 9/11 attacks were directed at countries because they were Muslim and that it supported Israel because Israelis were Jews while Palestinians were Muslims.
'We should wake up to the absurdity of our surprise at the prevalence of this extremism', he said
'Look at the funds it receives. Examine the education systems that succour it. And then measure, over the years, the paucity of our counter-attack in the name of peaceful co-existence. We have been outspent, outmanoeuvred and out-strategised'.
Speaking last night in New York to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Mr Blair warned that it was impossible to defeat extremism 'without defeating the narrative that nurtures it'.
Moderate Muslims who believed in co-existence and tolerance were, he said, being undermined by the unwillingness of the West to take on the extremists' arguments.
'We think if we sympathise with the narrative - that essentially this extremism has arisen as a result, partly, of our actions - we meet it halfway, we help the modernisers to be more persuasive', he said. 'We don't. We indulge it and we weaken them. Worse, a reaction springs up amongst our people that we are pandering to this narrative and they start to resent Muslims as a whole'.
Mr Blair's warning comes as the French issued their most extreme warning in recent years about the dangers of visiting Britain, saying a terrorist attack is ‘very likely’. A dramatic statement on the website of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs adds that visitors need to exercise ‘extreme vigilance’. This is especially so in world famous sites like London’s Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus, and on the capital’s public transport system.
While Britain and the USA have already warned people to be careful when travelling in Europe, the French advice is by far the most extreme to date. It invokes the 1990s and early 2000s when Gallic secret agents regularly monitored suspected Islamic radicals in a city referred to by the French as ‘Londonistan’.
The statement was issued after terrorist suspect killed in a drone attack in Pakistan last month was identified as a British man tasked with leading an Al Qaeda group in the UK.
Last week, security agents in France, Britain and Germany warned Al Qaeda terrorists were planning a Mumbai-style atrocity in Europe. The alert was sparked after Ahmad Sidiqi, an Afghan informant said to have known Mohammed Atta, mastermind of the 9/11 2001 attacks, told US interrogators of the chilling plot.
Sidiqi said Ilyas Kashmiri, an Al Qaeda commander linked to the 2008 attacks in Mumbai in India that left 174 people dead, had told him that teams had already been sent to Europe to launch similar assaults.
The United States and Britain warned their citizens on Sunday of an increased risk of terrorist attacks in Europe, with Washington saying al Qaeda might target transport infrastructure.
Britain raised the terrorism alert level in its advice for travellers to Germany and France to ‘high from ‘general,’ while leaving the threat level at home unchanged at ‘severe’.
The young don't need religion, as the environment gives them all the certainty they need, says Robert Colvile in Britain
First, the good news: Richard Dawkins's campaign to turn Britain's children against organised religion seems to have failed. Unfortunately, it hasn't done so because of the depth of Christian belief in this country, but because kids, by and large, can't be bothered with religion at all.
According to The Faith of Generation Y, a study of 300 people born after 1982 who have been involved in the Church's youth and community projects, hostility towards Christianity has faded into brute indifference. True, only 12 per cent denied the existence of a higher power, while 23 per cent were relatively traditional believers. But by far the most popular answer, collecting approximately 43 per cent of the vote, essentially amounted to "Dunno, really".
The explanation is simple: for those of us born in the Eighties and later, religion just doesn't impinge on our lives. My education was unusually traditional – as well as the statutory RE classes, there were daily chapel services and Bible readings, and I even served my time in the school choir as a warbling, off-key alto.
But as soon as we had the chance, even those brought up in the faith ditched religion as quickly as the Prodigal Son ditched his dear old dad. At university, theology was for the weirdos who were actually interested in the stuff, or for the dossers who thought it was an easy route to Oxbridge. The only visible religiosity came from the evangelical, Christian Union types – a weird, cultish sub-sect who just seemed too damned happy. In the 2001 census, a majority of my yearmates gave their religion as "Jedi", just because we thought it was funny.
So the new study does have a point when it claims that the "chain of Christian memory" has become "eroded", that Britons are no longer sustained by a common store of religious knowledge. But it comes a cropper when it paints a picture of an apathetic generation, slouching through life with its gaze fixed on the here-and-now, "not looking for answers to ultimate questions" and relying – when consolation is needed – on "a very faded, inherited cultural memory of Christianity in the absence of anything else".
For this generation is not, as the report says, "unstoried and memoryless" – it has turned to another story altogether. A couple of years ago, the Government sent every state school in England a copy of Teach Your Granny to Text, and Other Ways to Change the World – the result of an exercise in which more than 4,300 schoolchildren were asked to suggest ways to make the planet a better place. The majority of the published suggestions were about the environment: ask your dad to stop singing in the shower, so he wastes less water; don't waste electricity by leaving the charger connected to your mobile phone.
Greenery, as a secular religion, has come to dominate not just the curriculum, but the imagination. It's Blue Peter's recycled bottle tops on a grand scale: lessons on the dangers of global warming, projects on endangered species, litter-picking exercises. As any parent will testify, pester power is as often employed these days to guilt Dad into separating out the recyclables as to beg for the latest Transformer. Colleagues who have suffered their children's eco-scorn assure me that no member of the Inquisition was ever so ruthless, ever so certain of his faith, as their tiny Torquemadas.
For the Church, the problem is clear. Environmentalism can offer all the upsides of faith – the sense of community, of certainty, of moral superiority – with none of the nagging doubts. The idea that Jesus died for your sins can be hard to get your head around. How much simpler, and how much more appropriate for our age, is the idea that you can save your soul, and the world, simply by shopping in the organic aisle.
Britain faces a power crisis of unimaginable proportions. Our generating capacity is degrading at a rapid pace, and according to energy minister Chris Huhne, we face power blackouts in a few years.
Indeed, we are looking at a shortfall of at least 40 per cent as our elderly nuclear and conventional gas, coal and oil power stations reach their dotage. As they close, the spectre of fuel poverty will continue to raise its head.
During last winter, that coldest of cold snaps, according to official statistics, thousands of pensioners died because they were unable to afford to heat their homes. Sadly this is just the beginning.
Our economy runs on power. After wages, the biggest cost to most businesses is energy. We have all seen domestic bills soar in recent years, cutting into our disposable income and making life much less pleasant. How can this be?
It is not as if we don't know that we need power, it is not as if siren voices haven't been warning us for at least a decade that unless we seriously invest in energy generation we will be back to candles and watermills.
Only last week, Mr Huhne was bobbing self-importantly around in the midst of the Great Thanet wind farm. He, too, is worried about the shortfall in our energy supply, and he, like so many of our political and social elite, sees developments like the Swedish Vattenfall's wind farm as the only way forward. It isn't, and here is why.
They need back-up power (read conventional power stations - the ones that are closing down) running continuously in case the wind stops blowing. Even if they did work as we are told, to supply the UK's energy needs of 78GW we would require at least 78,000 5MW turbines.
The Government boasts that we have 4,500 of them. They are not self-funding like other kinds of power, and can only survive with subsidies such as the upwards of 14 per cent secretly added to everybody's electricity bill to pay for our EU-inspired Renewable Energy Obligation.
And you thought the wind was free? They are unreliable and the power from them is unpredictable. The Government talks about full capacity - at best they run at 26 per cent, which means you can only expect to get 1MW from a 4MW turbine.
They fail to provide jobs. Vattenfall boasts that East Kent will get 21 jobs in Ramsgate, but the company will get £1.2 billion in subsidy over the next 20 years, if they last that long. We have no idea how much maintenance will cost. Anybody who lives near the sea will tell you about the ability of salt to gum up the works. These precision instruments will break down.
If we are worried about power then sadly these ornaments, these vanity projects will never provide the power we need. According to figures released this week by the Government's own UK Energy Research Centre, the energy produced at Thanet over the projected 25 year lifespan of the farm, measured in megawatt hours, is expected to be £149 a pop. That compares with £80 for coal and gas, and £97 for nuclear power. Costs have increased for all generation, but offshore wind farms are way the most expensive.
This is, of course, madness but it is the collective lunacy of our political class. Two years ago, Parliament near unanimously supported the Climate Change Act. This forces us to cut our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, at a cost of up to £18 billion a year, or £734 billion in total. They have done this to apply EU rules.
What they don't tell you is that they are slowly seeing through the climate scam themselves. Only in June at the Bilderburg conference of world leaders the agenda read: "The conference will deal mainly with financial reform, security, cyber technology, energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, world food problem, global cooling, social networking, medical science, EU-US relations."
British head teacher shocks pupils by eating spider
He has been recognised as one of the country’s leading head teachers whose methods have helped achieve enviable results at his schools. Indeed such is Aydin Onac’s reputation that he was even awarded a £40,000 golden hello when he took over at one London secondary. But his latest methods may prove a little difficult to stomach, after he stunned pupils at his new school by eating a tarantula in front of a packed assembly.
Recreating the sort of stunt usually seen on reality show, I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out Of Here, Mr Onac ate the baked spider, in order to raise money for a new sports and drama centre at St Olave’s Grammar School in Orpington, Kent.
While some of his pupils delighted at seeing his discomfort during the ordeal, others were said to be upset, and at least one parent complained that it set a bad example to youngsters.
Mr Onac only took over at the highly rated St Olave’s school last month, after resigning from his previous post as head of the Fortismere School in Muswell Hill in London. When he joined Fortismere School in 2006 he became the first head teacher in the country to receive a £40,000 signing on bonus. But despite some initial opposition, he oversaw a significant rise in exam results, with the number of pupils achieving five good GCSEs rising from 64 to 73 per cent in just three years.
Just weeks into his new job in Orpington however his unconventional approach to running a school has threatened to divide opinion. Mr Onac, whose school serves more than 900 boys aged between 11 and 18, said he came up with the idea of eating a poisonous spider as a way of raising sponsorship money for a new sports and drama complex.
He explained: “It wasn’t until I opened the container and saw how big it was that I started to feel very nervous. “When all the students came into the great hall and I realised what I had let myself in for, and that there was no way out, then I really started to panic.” He added: “It tasted quite salty, and a little bit like burnt chicken. It felt crunchy and very dry in the mouth, like eating those very dry cheese biscuits, so it was difficult to swallow. “As I was eating it I was thinking about the quickest route to the cloakroom and whether I would still be alive by break-time.”
The spider was sourced from Cambodia, where they are farmed and eaten by locals as a delicacy, and Mr Onac has insisted its importation complied with British and EU guidelines. The spider are usually deep fried and the cooking process negates the effects of any toxins the spider carries.
But while he has insisted the stunt was ethically sound, not everybody connected with the school is in agreement. One parent, who did not wish to be named, said: “It's all very well raising money, but why does he have to behave as if he's taking part in I'm A Celebrity? “Head teachers, especially ones of his calibre, should not be copying people like Jordan or Joe Swash and eating exotic animals. “I don't care if it is responsibly sourced, if children get the wrong idea then they'll think it's OK to go around eating spiders.”
Another parent said: “I know that these spiders are farmed in Cambodia and considered a delicacy there, but we're not in Cambodia, we're in Orpington and in Orpington we don't do things like this."
But a member of the teaching staff said they were full of admiration for Mr Onac’s actions. He said: “It was a sight that I for one never thought we would see in the great hall. We all thought he was incredibly brave.”
The power of Roman history, literature and myth is so great that it will always go on being reinvented. And that reinvention didn't just start in the Thirties with I, Claudius.
Because classics was the staple diet of British and European education from around 1100AD until about 1900, it was classical thought that provided the majority of storylines in Western European literature, as well as much of the subject matter in Renaissance art and architecture. Throw in Christianity – largely disseminated through Europe in Greek and Latin – and you see how the writing mind of the Western world was, until recently, a classical mind.
Ben Jonson said of Shakespeare that he had "small Latin and less Greek", but the point was that even a man of humble origins brought up in rural Warwickshire knew a little of both – pretty unlikely these days.
Shakespeare was only one of the great European writers – including Dryden, Pope, Milton, Dante and Samuel Johnson – to use classical stories as their raw material, refashioned in new and brilliant, and pretty fast and loose, ways.
It's not just the usual suspects – Antony and Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and Coriolanus – that were borrowed from the ancient world. The fountain of classical tales was so powerful that even a play such as The Comedy of Errors was rooted in a – now obscure – Roman comedy, The Twin Brothers by Plautus.
The predominant influence of the classical world on English writers has only recently been extinguished. P G Wodehouse won a senior classical scholarship to Dulwich College in 1897, and packed his books with Latin references. In The Girl on the Boat (1922), Wodehouse gives a Latin lesson that wouldn't disgrace the most fastidious of classics masters: "Nothing is more curious than the myriad ways in which the reaction from an unfortunate love affair manifests itself in various men…
"Archilochum, for instance, according to the Roman writer, proprio rabies armavit iambo. It is no good pretending out of politeness that you know what that means, so I will translate.
"Rabies – his grouch – armavit – armed – Archilochum – Armilochus – iambo – with the iambic – proprio – his own invention."
"In other words, when the poet Archilochus was handed his hat by the lady of his affections, he consoled himself by going off and writing satirical verse about her in a new metre, which he had thought up immediately after leaving the house."
Wodehouse, as ever, hits the nail on the proverbial. Whether you're talking about men who have been chucked, like Archilochus, weak men (Claudius), debauched men (Caligula) or powerful men (Julius Caesar), the Romans got there first, and gave modern writers an archetype to play with.
It's no wonder that the head of MI5 also said that he had seen lots of security chiefs like Sulla (a Roman general known for his cunning), in despotic regimes across the world. Republican and Imperial Rome was seething with characters jockeying for position in the ancient city's complex military and political hierarchies.
So, want a parallel for Louise Shackleton, David Miliband's wife, incensed at her brother-in-law's decision to enter the Labour leadership race? Well, you could do worse than Livia, the ambitious power behind several imperial thrones; Augustus's third wife, mother to Tiberius, grandmother to Claudius, great-great grandmother to Nero.
Margaret Thatcher has often been compared to the British rebel queen Boadicea. And David Cameron could be any one of a dozen confident emperors, born to the purple (the colour of the toga worn by emperors, consuls and generals). Throw in the power of myth – mostly, admittedly, Greek myth, adapted by the Romans – and you can see how classical tales are so easily revived, and so memorable, particularly to the minds of children.
The battles between the gods, the Trojan horse, the endless wanderings of Odysseus, the hell of King Midas turning everything he touches to gold, the 12 Labours of Hercules… Ancient myths are beautifully structured stories. They follow peaks and troughs, just like the plot arcs of the Hollywood scriptwriter ruthlessly trained in the art of story-telling.
It means classical stories jump effortlessly from papyrus to cinema screen. And it also means that those stories have kept on jumping to cinema screens, even as the study of classics has declined in recent years (although the number of state schools doing Latin has doubled in the past decade).
Roman history and literature can survive the unthinking attacks of former education secretaries Ed Balls ("Very few businesses are asking for Latin") and Charles Clarke ("Education for education's sake is a bit dodgy"). Everyone gets Rome, because the Romans got everywhere.
Roman history is far enough in the past that you can play around with it for your own modern purposes; you can recycle it into good or trashy stuff without straining the original sources too much. But it's also recent enough that you can see the direct Roman influence on so many things – on our politics, architecture, literature and, most of all, the English language – while still being astounded by the savagery that accompanied all that civilisation.
Tell a child about lions tearing bleeding chunks out of gladiator slaves, and you've got them hooked on Rome for life. They don't need to know the pluperfect subjunctive second person plural of amo to appreciate the thrills of the Colosseum. Nice, though, if they can learn that, too.
Patients have to put up with longer waits and poor service because surgeons and managers are "freezing out" private firms from the NHS, a think-tank claims today. The Civitas report paints a picture of a "closed shop" NHS in which hospital staff are vehemently opposed to the market.
They routinely awards contracts to in-house-providers rather than commercial operators - even if it means patients or tax payers get a worse deal, found James Gubb, head of the health unit at Civitas.
He interviewed NHS and private contractor staff for his report, Refusing Treatment. In it he argued: "Existing NHS providers use their muscle and connections to keep providing services even when faster, higher quality care is on offer elsewhere.
"The results are that the benefits of a decentralised and innovative NHS are being denied to patients who have to wait longer for treatment and fail to access the most appropriate services."
Mr Gubb found many staff believed extra competition would inevitably lead to the break-up of the health service. One NHS executive told him: "I do not believe many people have bought into the idea that the NHS is the organisation that procures health care for the public and where that health care is delivered should not matter."
For this reason the report concluded: "There remains a culture of supporting local NHS providers, often regardless of the quality of other organisations: NHS, voluntary or private." Tactics included "predatory pricing" by hospital trusts in areas that were open to competition, by off-loading overheads on to other services.
The anti-market bias also fostered low productivity and high absenteeism, according to Mr Gubb's evidence. One private provider told him: "I know for a fact that a surgeon in an unnamed NHS trust takes 2½ hours to do a hip replacement that he does in 45 minutes at [one of our hospitals]."
Another executive said: "It’s a question of having the will. Four surgeons didn’t turn up for work here yesterday, blaming the snow. In the private sector they’d all turn up... In the health service there just isn’t the will to work too hard, because you won’t get fired and you’ve got your pension."
With the Coalition pushing to open up the NHS to greater competition, Mr Gubb - an advocate of greater private sector involvement - warned internal resistance would hinder progress.
He said: "The Coalition Government has put a lot of faith in the power of the market to meet the NHS’s unnerving productivity challenge. The problem is the Coalition isn’t addressing the real issues as to why the market currently isn’t delivering: the overwhelming power of hospitals and the closed-shop 'we can do it alone because we’re the NHS' attitude so prevalent across the organisation."
His position is almost the polar opposite of that taken by the British Medical Association, which warned last week that increasing competition would damage the health service. The BMA believes private firms "cherry-pick" the most profitable services, like providing routine operations in independent sector treatment centres, leaving the NHS to carry the can for more expensive ones.
Dr Hamish Meldrum, its chairman of council, said that while he was not "ideologically against" markets, the BMA thought competition cost the NHS more in terms of cash leaving the service, than it saved in terms of increased efficiencies.
Ex-Marxist head wants to axe bad British teachers and drive out the unions
A deputy headmistress delivered a damning indictment on state schools yesterday, saying she hoped education reforms would smash teaching unions. In the most passionate moment yet at the Tory autumn conference, Katharine Birbalsingh attacked a state system which she said was ‘broken as it keeps poor children poor’.
The former Marxist confessed she had voted Tory for the first time at the general election, saying that teachers were too ‘blinded by leftist ideology’ and refused to admit they were failing children.
After a decade of teaching in state schools, the 37-year-old Oxford graduate plans to publish a book exposing the ‘chaos’ in the system. Miss Birbalsingh later told the Mail she hoped the Coalition push for free schools – which will be able to set their own pay and conditions – would reduce the influence of unions.
Her intervention came as Education Secretary Michael Gove pledged to give heads more powers to discipline children and put teachers back in charge.
During a fringe event, Miss Birbalsingh laid bare the failures of state schools, where, far too often, teachers were expected to be social workers as well. She said: ‘In schools and in society, we need high expectations, of everyone, even if you’re black, or live on a council estate – why can’t they sit exams at the end of the year? ‘We need to instil competition amongst the kids and help build their motivation by ensuring they’re not given everything and that they are held to account for what they do.
‘We have a situation where standards have been so dumbed down that even the children know it. ‘When I give them past exam papers to do from 1998, they groan and beg for a 2005 or 6 paper, because they know it’ll be easier.’
She added: ‘Exclusion quotas bind our headteachers, league tables have all of us pursuing targets and grades. Instead of teaching properly ... the ordinary child … is lost in a sea of bureaucracy handed down from the well meaning.’
Ranking children by ability was viewed as poisonous by teachers, she said, which meant that pupils ‘live in darkness, without any idea of how they compare to those around them, let alone to those who are educated in the private sector’.
She added: ‘Black underachievement is due in part to the chaos of our classrooms, and in part, to the accusation of racism. ‘If you keep telling teachers that they’re racist for trying to discipline black boys, and if you keep telling heads that they’re racist for trying to exclude black boys, in the end, the schools stop reprimanding these children. ‘Black children underachieve because of what the well-meaning liberal does to him.’
Miss Birbalsingh, who has just started as a deputy head teacher at St Michaels and All Angels Academy in South London, said the biggest problem in the system was the destruction of behavioural and academic standards.
‘I don’t think ordinary parents have any idea about what goes on in their schools. But it is totally and utterly chaotic. Teachers spend most of their time telling children to sit down or stop disrupting the class rather than teaching.’
Miss Birbalsingh said there was a conspiracy of silence in staffrooms because teachers were too afraid of being branded as failures if they admitted how bad the true picture was. ‘League tables tell you nothing about how good a school really is, just how good the school is at playing the system and picking the easier exams,’ she said. ‘I’d like to see bad teachers getting fired and heads given the powers to discipline children.’
The daughter of immigrant parents from the Caribbean, Miss Birbalsingh said she remained ‘on the fence’ over free schools as she was worried that unqualified people would run them. But she added: ‘I suspect the rationale for free schools is to get the unions out. If they achieve that, it will be worth it because the unions are keeping bad teachers and bad support staff from being fired.’
At conference yesterday, Mr Gove announced that head teachers will be given powers to punish students who misbehave on the way to and from school. ‘At the moment heads are prevented from dealing with their pupils if they run wild in a shopping mall or behave anti-socially in town centres,’ he said. ‘So we will change the rules to send one clear and consistent message. Heads will have the freedom they need to keep pupils in line - any time, any place, anywhere.
‘We have to stop treating adults like children and children like adults. Under this Government we will ensure that the balance of power in the classroom changes – and teachers are back in charge.’
History, grammar and spelling will return to the heart of the school curriculum, Michael Gove vowed yesterday. Warning against the ‘trashing of our past’ and poor standards of English, the Education Secretary said children were leaving school without knowing their nation’s history or being able to communicate properly.
He said he ‘couldn’t live’ with himself if he stopped ‘pressing, pushing, fighting’ to give every child the chance to succeed. ‘It is every child’s right to be taught how to communicate clearly,’ he said, as he attacked the way that the ‘basic building blocks of English have been demolished’. Mr Gove added: ‘Thousands of children leave school unable to compose a proper sentence, ignorant of basic grammar, incapable of writing a clear and accurate letter.’
Examiners will take account of spelling, punctuation and grammar when marking tests, he said.
He spoke of the need to go back to traditional subjects of maths and science. ‘We urgently need to ensure our children study rigorous disciplines instead of pseudo-subjects. Otherwise we will be left behind,’ he said.
He attacked the piecemeal approach to history, where children are given a mix of topics at primary, ‘a cursory run through Henry VIII, and Hitler at secondary’ before giving up the subject at 14. He has asked historian Simon Schama to advise on putting British history at the heart of the curriculum.
Mr Gove also called for tougher school discipline standards, but said he drew the line at hitting children.
Christine Blower, of the National Union of Teachers, said children ‘are being failed through the testing and assessment regime’. ‘It leads to a narrowing of the curriculum and teaching to the test,’ she said.
Policeman abandoned unconscious man to die by side of road... and then lied to hide his actions. Australians tend to see the British generally as work-shy and that certainly applies to their police
A policeman who left an unconscious man to die by the side of a road before inventing a story to cover his tracks has been found guilty of misconduct.
Former traffic officer Pc David Driver, 36, wrote false witness statements in his notebook after he found out 26-year-old Steven Hathaway had died. He told bosses he had spoken to Mr Hathaway and his friend who were outside a house in the picturesque Cotswold village of Bourton-on-the-Water, Gloucestershire.
But in fact Mr Hathaway had been comatose from drink and drugs and his friend barely able to stand when Driver left them in the middle of a freezing night on Valentine's Day last year. Less than an hour later Mr Hathaway died at the scene.
On Tuesday Driver admitted misconduct in a public office on the first day of his trial at Worcester Crown Court. The court heard Mr Hathaway might have survived if Driver had called an ambulance.
David Jackson, prosecuting, said an inquest had yet to be held but added: 'There is evidence that the cold had been a contributory factor, which Driver should have been aware of and acted upon. 'That doesn't make him legally responsible for the death, but it is a relevant factor.'
Driver was an officer for Gloucestershire Police when he spotted Mr Hathaway and another man lying on a pavement outside a house in Moore Road, Bourton-on-the-Water at 1.30am on Valentine's Day last year. He spoke to Mr Hathaway's friend who was also drunk before leaving them.
Ten minutes later a passing motorist saw the men and dialled 999 and two different police officers attended the scene. They called an ambulance but paramedics could not detect a pulse for Mr Hathaway and he was pronounced dead at 2.35am.
Judge Alistair McGreath said Driver 'panicked' after learning of Mr Hathaway's death and concocted a false report to cover his back. He said: 'He [Driver] said they were both capable and, critically, that neither of them were unconscious and incapably lying on the ground.'
Following Mr Hathaway's death, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (PICC) launched an investigation and Driver resigned from Gloucestershire Police. In February he pleaded guilty to neglecting his duty as a police officer and perverting the course of justice.
On Tuesday Judge McGreath adjourned the case and bailed Driver before sentencing on November 12. He told him: 'It is important that you understand I will pass on you the sentence that is appropriate on the information that I have. 'Being out on bail says nothing at all about what that sentence will be.'
Any conviction for rape in Britain would have to be regarded as unsafe unless there were independant witnesses actually present at the time
A horsewoman who claimed her boyfriend fed her a Pringles sandwich laced with diazepam to make her drowsy before raping her is facing jail. Kate Woodhead’s fiction extended to salacious details about him being ‘turned on’ as he pulled off her jodhpurs, a court heard. But after a three-week trial, a jury decided that her story was a pack of lies.
She made it up to get back at Porsche-driving Paul Joseph because she feared he was having an affair and thought he was about to walk out on her, Guildford Crown Court heard. During the case she was granted anonymity under an order made by the judge. But this was lifted when she was convicted.
The court heard that Mr Joseph, an IT consultant, divorced his wife in 2007 to be with Woodhead, who ran a business providing horses and carriages for weddings. They moved into a rented lodge with a stable block in Wisley, Surrey.
In the early hours of April 10 last year Woodhead went with a friend to a police station to accuse Mr Joseph of rape. She told officers she would pursue her complaint only if they promised not to approach her boyfriend until after she had sorted out her affairs, including the house.
She went home in a ‘friendly and jovial mood’, the jury was told, and the couple continued to share the house and enjoy sex while he remained in ignorance of what was happening behind his back.
The friend who accompanied her to the police station told the court Woodhead said she intended to make Mr Joseph pay for the ‘other woman’ and he ‘wouldn’t know what had hit him’.
Prosecutor Hugh Forgan said: ‘The allegation of rape is entirely fictitious. The pair had a topsy-turvy relationship and at the time of the allegation they were sleeping in separate beds. ‘However they still had a sex life, in fact she even had sex with him the day after going to the police crying rape.’
Their relationship ended after a furious row when Mr Joseph found a large number of condoms in a drawer and became convinced Woodhead was selling herself for sex. Woodhead kicked him out, changed the locks and obtained a court order banning him from the premises.
She packed his belongings, including a top-of-the-range Bang and Olufsen stereo, expensive art prints, and the desk from his study, into a horsebox. They were driven away and were never seen again.
In another ‘malicious’ act, she lied to the DVLA, transferring ownership of his Porsche Carrera and BMW motorbike to her name, intending to sell them. She was arrested after her friend went back to the police to tell them she thought the rape scenario was made up. The rape allegation against Mr Joseph was dropped and no action taken against him.
Cross-examining Mr Joseph, Andrew Turton, defending Woodhead, suggested that he made her a sandwich of Pringles and diazepam, then when she became drowsy he carried her to bed, and was ‘turned on’ by removing her jodhpurs before having sex with her without her consent.
Mr Joseph said: ‘A Pringle sandwich laced with diazepam must have been the driest ever. You’d think you could taste it. I wouldn’t eat it.’
The jury found Woodhead guilty of perverting the course of justice, fraud and two counts of theft. She had denied all the charges. Remanding her on bail until sentencing next month, Judge Neil Stewart said a custodial sentence was ‘almost inevitable’.
Light drinking in pregnancy makes the offspring smarter and better behaved
And what a tizzy that finding is provoking! "Experts" (i.e. believers in the conventional wisdom) don't want to believe the evidence. They do however eventually get around to realizing -- now that it suits them -- that correlation is not causation and that women who can drink in a controlled manner are probably smarter anyway -- and pass that on to their children genetically. The results do nonetheless suggest that moderate drinking is not harmful
Experts warn mothers-to-be should not raise a glass to new British research showing "light drinking" during pregnancy has no detrimental effect.
The study tracked the long-term health of more than 11,500 British children born at the start of the decade and it found no sign of harm - and perhaps even a benefit - from mums who drank low levels of alcohol throughout their pregnancy.
The finding runs counter to official advice for Australia's impending mums and experts say there were factors that may have skewed the data and abstinence remained the safest approach.
“The finding ... was that children exposed to light drinking in pregnancy had better cognitive ability at age five years in comparison to children of mothers who did not drink during pregnancy,” said Dr Lucy Burns, senior lecturer and chief investigator at the University of NSW's National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. “This was, however, only one of the many outcomes in the report, the majority of which found no improvements in child functioning.
“Given the increasing body of knowledge now showing that alcohol disrupts brain development in the foetus ... it seems most sensible to continue to promote abstinence during pregnancy as the best approach.”
The study rated new mothers from either teetotal through to light drinkers (one or two standard drinks a week), moderate drinkers (three to six drinks weekly or five at any one time), and binge or heavy drinkers (seven or more drinks a week or six in any one sitting) during their pregnancy.
About 60 per cent of the mums abstained during pregnancy while one in four (26 per cent) were light drinkers, one in 20 (5.5 per cent) were moderate drinkers and 2.5 per cent were heavy drinkers.
Their children's development was assessed at ages three and five years.
Heavy drinking mums were more likely to have children who were hyperactive and with behavioural and emotional problems. But, in a surprise result, children of light drinkers were found to be 30 per cent less likely to have behavioural problems compared to mothers who abstained.
Professor Wayne Hall, from the University of Queensland's School of Population Health, said it was “highly unlikely” that light drinking alone carried a benefit for children.
“It is much more likely that women who report drinking these small quantities have children at lower risk of developing behaviour disorders because they have better diets, are healthier, use antenatal care, are better educated (and) probably drink alcohol with meals.”
These benefits were unlikely to have been completely factored out by the researchers, Professor Hall said.
The expert reaction came as an Australian study was also released showing low levels of alcohol consumption during pregnancy did not increase the risk of birth defect.
The study of 4,700 women who gave birth in Western Australia between 1995 and 1997 did however show drinking more than seven standard drinks a week during the first trimester carried a four-fold increased risk of birth defects.
“While this finding may provide some reassurance to mothers who unknowingly consumed alcohol before they knew they were pregnant, the best advice is still to follow the national guidelines that advise expecting mums to avoid alcohol in pregnancy,” said Dr Colleen O'Leary from Perth's Telethon Institute for Child Health Research.
The official advice of NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) is “for women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy, not drinking is the safest option”.
She first reveals below, mockingly, that she knows the 10:10 video is ecofascist but then goes on to approve of it. That would once have been called "nailing your colours to the mast". Should we say "Heil Abbess"? No doubt she would like that. She does seem a lonely soul -- determined to take out her own unhappiness on mainstream society
In a critical stage of the the battle to win hearts and minds with a massive global campaign, Franny Armstrong has decided to blow up every ounce of credibility she has ever earned** by agreeing to produce what has to be the most repulsive**, sick** little film in the entire universe.
Or not. Depending on whether you find the viral transmission of outrageously disgusting** YouTube movies humourous. Or not.
It’ll certainly get the 10:10 campaign through to people, but maybe not quite in the way she intended. I’m thinking fatwas**.
So much for decades of trying to convince people that the green movement isn’t all about world domination through domestic fascism and mind control.
Wave goodbye to all that hard work to sell the concept that eco-living is about a shared vision, building bridges and finding common ground – no pressure.
Eco-fascism. It’s right back there on the agenda now, thanks to you, Franny**.
And it’s going to encourage very nasty e-mails. Which we really don’t need. Oh goody. It’s already attracted enough complaints about violence for you to take it down from the 10:10 website. Good call, I’d say :-
http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure
** No relationships were harmed in the making of this post – it’s all intended to be ironic. If you didn’t realise that, sorry, but it should have been really obvious. Franny Armstrong is a fabulous individual, as everybody knows, and the 10:10 campaign is ultra cool. It’s a shame that this mini-movie didn’t work for so many people. We’re all different, and we all have a different sense of humour, and that’s great. Go on, pass the YouTube link on to someone and start a conversation. No pressure.
UK to overhaul welfare, child benefits: "Britain will cap payments to jobless families and scrap child benefits for high earners in a sweeping overhaul of the country’s welfare system, George Osborne, the Treasury chief, said yesterday. … Osborne said Britain’s coalition government would introduce a new welfare cap to make sure families in which both parents are unemployed do not receive more in benefits than an average family earns in wages. Osborne also announced parents who earn more than $70,000 per year will lose child benefit payments from 2013. Currently, all families are paid $32 a week for their eldest child and about $20 for other children.”
How to kill off a recovery: "One of the things which can be very difficult to get over to a certain type is this idea that fiscal or monetary stimulus are not the only things which can aid a recovery in a battered economy.It really isn’t that the State must do more: there is also the argument that in other areas the State must do less. For example, those streamers of red tape with which we festoon industry.”
5 October, 2010
An experience of an NHS mental health ward
Carefully designed to make your illness worse
Three-quarters of Britons suffer from depression at some point in their lives. While this is often managed with counselling and medication, every year many people end up in hospital on psychiatric wards. But are they really the best place for such patients? Writer KERRY HIATT, suffering from terrible anxiety, admitted herself and was traumatised by her experience. For the sake of the other patients, we are not identifying the hospital.
A huge television set dominates the dimly-lit room. It’s 1pm, but children’s cartoons are on a continuous loop and the people slumped in armchairs stare numbly at the flashing images.
Opposite me, a man in a worn suit and stained overcoat empties a handful of old cigarette butts from his pocket on to the coffee table and examines them.
As I timidly look around, I see a toothless older woman staring at me, a snarl curling her lip. I turn away but out of the corner of my eye, I catch her making obscene gestures.
The walls appear to be covered with hand prints and unidentifiable smears; the only decoration a handwritten poster listing banned items; nail clippers, razors, tweezers, lighters, medication, belts, shoe strings, spiral bound notebooks, jewellery and underwired bras.
Two cagey-looking men are exchanging money in the corner and my heart begins to race in case I’ve witnessed something I shouldn’t have. I hear the front door slam and lock automatically as the staff come and go. Am I in prison? In fact, I’m an inpatient at a mental health unit in London.
Just a week before, I’d been leading a normal life. In fact, life was good: I had a wealth of great friends and had recently married. My husband Joe and I were living in a beautiful rented home in London, and my career as a journalist and author was flourishing; Joe, a web developer, was also doing well.
I was on top of the world, until, seemingly overnight, everything changed.
It started with feeling I couldn’t get out of bed for work one Monday morning — but after a few days of exhaustion, slumped on the sofa, I began to feel overcome by feelings of worthlessness, failure and inexplicable guilt.
I kept having this image of myself lying in a bathtub with slashed wrists. I would shake uncontrollably, twitch nervously and had ferocious nightmares — when I managed to sleep.
Work emails went unanswered, calls from family and friends were ignored and if my husband tried to suggest something to make me feel better, he would experience the wrath of a temper I didn’t even know I had.
I couldn’t help myself. Nothing had changed in my life, yet I was hopeless and wanted life to end.
I had no idea why this was happening — and I was terrified, but of what I didn’t know. I had suffered from depression for years and, at 22, was put on an antidepressant, Citalopram; with this, my moods settled with just occasional bouts of feeling low.
'Men and women roamed the halls aimlessly, some screamed and shouted, while others stared into the distance with an alarming lack of awareness'
But this was the worst bout of depression I had ever experienced.
With my close friend Cathy, Joe took me to our GP — me wearing my pyjamas and panicking about the thought of being outside.
Shaking and sobbing, I begged my doctor to tell me why I was feeling this way. But, instead, he asked whether I’d had any suicidal thoughts and whether I thought I would act on them. I admitted that I had and that dying seemed like the simplest answer.
I knew they weren’t the answers a normal person would give, but I was beyond caring. I just wanted someone to take care of me. Wasn’t this what every TV show, magazine article and online support group instructed you to do when you were considering suicide; seek help?
My GP, a young doctor, conferred with his colleagues and decided I should be transferred to the nearby mental health unit.
I was afraid, but Joe and Cathy were incredibly supportive, telling me that being in the unit would keep me safe until I felt better.
From the outside the building looked like any other hospital, complete with a bright, clean waiting room and smiley receptionists. I had a long talk with one of the emergency assessment team in a cosy room.
The doctors’ conclusion was that I was suffering a breakdown and was a high suicide risk, and needed to be admitted to 24 hours-a-day psychiatric care for a few days to be supported through the worst of it.
I was flooded with relief. This was a breakdown, it was temporary and people were going to support me. I was safe and I was going to be OK.
'I was supposed to be safe from myself here, yet I had everything I needed to inflict serious personal damage'
The relief was short-lived. Escorted to a ward on another floor of the building, where the door slammed shut and locked behind me, I encountered the real hospital.
The air was stiflingly hot and smelled of unwashed bodies and cooking. Men and women roamed the halls aimlessly, some screamed and shouted, while others stared into the distance with an alarming lack of awareness.
Some looked like the normal well-dressed types you’d see on any High Street — but others wore filthy clothes and were extremely dishevelled.
By the way some patients behaved, it became apparent that some were suffering with far more than just depression. I was surprised that people with different mental illnesses were grouped together.
In all honesty, I was frightened beyond belief.
Needing to calm my nerves, I asked if I could go outside for a cigarette. Without speaking, a casually-dressed nurse pointed to a door, which led to a small, cramped outdoor cage.
The moment I stepped in, three male patients — one in his 20s, the others middle-aged — followed me.
I was shocked by their stained clothes, unwashed hair and filthy hands. They began to paw at me and, although I asked them to stop, they forced me back into a cramped corner, blocking my escape.
They demanded my cigarettes, and I handed them over, seizing the chance to flee to the nurses’ station.
A nurse listened to my story with a slightly sceptical look before leading me to a women-only lounge with two sofas and a TV. ‘You’ll be safe here,’ she said slowly as if talking to a child. Did she think I had made it up?
‘I’ll keep an eye on the door to make sure nobody comes in. We don’t have any available rooms so you’ll have to stay here until we do.’ She closed the door.
I wept. I loathed myself for being so afraid. But I felt so alone and vulnerable in a place where I had truly believed I would get help and be safe.
Still suffering from my crippling depression, I cried so long and so hard that I wondered whether it was actually possible to die from sadness.
When I tried to find a tissue in my handbag, my fingers brushed against something sharp stashed at the bottom. Emptying the contents, I found a pair of tweezers, some antidepressants and various generic painkillers.
I was supposed to be safe from myself here, yet I had everything I needed to inflict serious personal damage.
Curling up on the sofa, I closed my eyes and tried to forget about the bag’s contents.
I awoke hours later to a shirtless, barefoot man hovering beside me, unbuttoning his jeans.
Paralysed with fear, it took a few seconds for me to scream, which startled him and attracted the attention of a passing male nurse who pulled him away and ushered him out of the lounge.
‘Your room is ready now,’ was all he said to me. ‘I’ll show you where it is. It’s on a women-only corridor, you’ll be OK there.’
My heart was thudding as he led me to a room. At least it was clean; containing a single bed, wardrobe and a desk. I might be safer.
‘I’ll need to look through your things and take anything that might be dangerous.’ I emptied my bag allowing everything — pills and tweezers, too — to clatter on to the desk. ‘I’ve had these things for hours,’ I told him. ‘I could have hurt myself.’
‘Did you?’ I shook my head and he shrugged before departing with anything that could be considered dangerous. ‘That’s all right then.’
Within seconds of him closing the door, male patients swamped the glass window to stare in at me. Clearly no one was bothered about enforcing the women-only rule.
Too afraid to sleep, I lay down and pulled a sheet over my head.
Sometime later, my door was flung open by a woman trailing a suitcase behind her.
‘What’s this b**** doing in my room?’ she screamed, glaring at me. ‘I only left this morning and you’ve given my room away.’
No sooner had she left, a nurse came to tell me it was dinner time.
By now I was constantly shaking with nerves. She told me eating would make me feel better.
In the main lounge, other patients were already queuing for food. Listening to their chatter, I was shocked to discover that some had been living in the unit — a small space with no real outdoor access — for as long as nine months.
At the kitchen window, I received a huge mound of pasta covered with watered down cheese sauce and four green beans. A ball of instant mash potato was slapped on the side, and a wedge of cake so hard and flavourless that it was difficult to chew let alone swallow. It’s hard to see how anyone could start to feel better on this diet.
Plastic cutlery was thrown and people wailed at the dining tables.
We ate unsupervised, the staff gathered in their office — joking and eating their ordered-in pizzas, which had just been delivered.
The woman who claimed I had stolen her room glared at me with ferocious intensity.
She and several others noisily berated my atrocious behaviour. I tried to avoid making eye contact with her.
Another woman, maybe in her early 30s, wore fashionable pyjamas and a dressing gown, warned me to eat everything and try to stay in the communal areas or ‘else the staff will think you’re in a bad way’.
A man who’d been living on the ward for six months and was allowed day release was regaling others with tales of the gun he had bought on a nearby council estate. When another patient alerted him to ‘the new girl’, he sneered: ‘She won’t say anything. It wouldn’t be worth her life.’
To say I was relieved to see my husband and best friend walk through the door for visiting hours is an understatement.
But the moment they arrived, a beaming nurse ushered me into a room to take my blood pressure and weight. ‘Everyone has to be assessed when they arrive,’ she smiled, despite my explaining I’d been there all day.
When I finally sat down with my visitors, another nurse bounded up with a welcome pack full of toiletries and information on ‘my stay’ making it sound more like a jolly hotel jaunt.
'I am convinced that a mental health ward is not the best place to receive treatment for depression'
The staff had barely spoken to me throughout the day, let alone offered me any support, despite being on suicide watch. But now visiting hours had arrived it seemed everyone was on their best behaviour.
Shaking and tearful, I told Joe of what had happened in the past 12 hours. He made straight for the nurses’ station and demanded to see a doctor.
The doctor was sympathetic and apologised profusely, explaining the unit was for anyone in the local area who had some kind of mental illness; those suffering from depression were grouped with schizophrenics and others.
She said I was not the kind of person — young, attractive and professional — that was usually admitted, so I was bound to generate curiosity among other patients.
That didn’t explain why my neighbour at dinner was on the ward. But, frankly, I wasn’t in a state to argue her case and gratefully accepted the offer of care from a home treatment team to help my anxiety.
The team would be on call 24 hours a day, would turn up at random intervals, offer counselling and change my medication if they saw fit.
The home treatment team were, in fact, fantastic, and I felt incredibly well cared for.
They visited me several times a day; they prescribed Lorazepam — a drug used to treat anxiety — and, after three or four months, I settled back into my old lifestyle, going back to work and socialising.
But I know I was one of the lucky ones. So many people isolate themselves when they feel depressed, and it would be very easy to find yourself completely alone on a mental health ward with no visitors and no outside help.
When I spoke to MIND — the mental health charity — about what happened, they told me it was not uncommon for people to report similar experiences.
How utterly terrifying — the awful things I went through could really happen to anyone.
But I had Joe to fight my corner. Without him, the staff might not have listened to me or believed what had happened.
A year on, I still can’t forget the fear of that experience. It certainly won’t stop me seeking help, but I am convinced that a mental health ward is not the best place to receive treatment for depression.
Schizophrenic man hooked on cannabis stabbed stranger 81 times... after NHS said he 'posed no danger'
The family of a man murdered in his bed by a paranoid schizophrenic labelled the investigation into his death a ‘whitewash’ after it found no-one was to blame. Landscape gardener Daniel Quelch, 33, suffered 81 knife wounds in a frenzied attack after Benjamin Frankum broke into his parents’ bungalow.
Frankum, 25, then calmly told Mr Quelch’s two terrified young children that ‘Daddy was a bad man’ and he was going to be their ‘new daddy’.
An independent inquiry into cannabis-user Frankum’s NHS care and treatment revealed that he had been assessed for detention under the Mental Health Act weeks before the killing – but was not found to be a danger to the public. The report concluded that Mr Quelch’s murder could neither have been ‘predicted nor prevented’.
But his parents Barbara, 62, and Ernie, 66, said that NHS South East Coast, which had been responsible for Frankum’s care since 2001, had seriously failed in his treatment. Company director Mrs Quelch said: ‘We hold this NHS trust responsible for the death of our son as it did not look after Frankum properly and did not act on the warning signs. He was released into the community without proper support or monitoring.
‘He started smoking cannabis again, could not keep his house or himself clean and stopped taking his medication. ‘Even Frankum’s family were concerned and they told us that they were literally screaming down the phone at his care co-ordinator that he was not taking his medication. ‘Yet nothing was done and seven weeks later he murdered our son.’
At the time of Mr Quelch’s death, Frankum was living in a shared house in Littlehampton, West Sussex, supported by a housing association, after moving out of a residential home in May 2007.
From 2001 to 2006 the former boarding-school pupil had been in hospital, where he was diagnosed with ‘treatment resistant’ schizophrenia that was kept under control by the drug clozapine.
The report’s authors said that the killer was already a regular cannabis smoker when he first came into contact with the NHS aged 19, and had been for at least a year, if not more. But they had not been able to establish whether he used ordinary cannabis or super-strength skunk.
During the summer of 2007, Frankum’s family, the housing association and care services were ‘increasingly concerned’ about his behaviour, according to the report. But professional teams decided the situation did not justify sectioning him.
In August 2007 he broke into his grandmother’s house, stealing knives and jewellery – but still nothing was done. Then in the early hours of August 23 Frankum went to his mother’s house near Maidenhead, Berkshire, and crashed his stepfather’s car into the swimming pool. He then walked over a neighbouring field, broke into a house and stabbed Mr Quelch, whom he did not know, as he slept beside his two-year-old son.
After the children woke up, he put the blood-stained knife down on the bed to fetch them cans of Coca-Cola and yogurt, telling them he was their ‘new daddy’.
When Mrs Quelch came home after walking her dogs, she saw Frankum on the drive covered in blood and wearing only boxer shorts. He told her he was from MI5 and that he wanted to ask her some questions, but she stayed in her car and rang the police.
Two years ago a jury at Reading Crown Court found Frankum was responsible for the killing, after he was deemed unfit to plead, and ordered him to be detained in Broadmoor Hospital indefinitely.
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, who conducted the £100,000 independent inquiry, said: ‘Although we found areas where his care could have been better, we could find no evidence that the killing could have been predicted or prevented.
‘In May 2007 he deteriorated quite rapidly in the new (residential housing association) home. We found no evidence in his past that showed he was a threat. When he started to deteriorate, the care co-ordinator increased his visits, discussed his concerns with colleagues and arranged for him to be assessed by two experienced colleagues to see if he should be detained under the Mental Health Act.’
Mr Quelch’s family pointed out that the two assessments were made by a locum psychiatrist and a social worker – not by Frankum’s consultant psychiatrist, who told the inquiry that had a formal assessment been completed, he would have been sectioned [compulsorily confined]
Victims of anti-social behaviour can name and shame police who don't help them, says British government crime boss
Home Secretary Theresa May is ordering police to 'reclaim the streets' from louts they have allowed to run riot. Anyone who feels to have been repeatedly ignored by officers when complaining about loutish behaviour will be given new powers to demand action.
Officers will also be instructed to treat vandalism and low-level thuggery as a crime - rather than 'anti-social behaviour' which is the problem of town halls.
In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail on the eve of her speech to the Tory conference, Mrs May revealed that the public will be given formal rights to complain to superiors if police do not respond to multiple complaints.
It is hoped that the prospect of an officer being named in a complaint by a harassed member of the public will lead to thuggish behaviour being treated far more seriously.
The Home Secretary's decision follows a blistering report by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, who said police have staged a 30-year 'retreat from the streets'. Sir Denis O'Connor said that, as a result, the 'disease' of anti-social behaviour had been allowed to blight Britain.
Mrs May said she wanted to get rid of the term 'anti-social behaviour' - which was largely coined by the last Labour government. Instead, it should be called what it is - 'crime and disorder', she said.
'By calling it anti-social behaviour, it made it seem less important and it made it seem less of a crime. It is a crime. Dealing with this is about cutting crime and the job of the police is cutting crime. 'Part of the problem is that people feel they are reporting things that are wrong but they are not seeing any action. As a society we need to reclaim the streets, and part of that is about police being on the streets and being visible.'
In her speech today, Mrs May will spell out how police will face a formal investigation by the local Community Safety Partnership if they ignore repeated pleas for help from the public. The partnership - a panel which includes local police chiefs - will then have to explain what action is being taken to new locally-elected police commissioners.
It is a direct response to the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington, who killed herself and her disabled 18-year-old daughter. Miss Pilkington, who was being tormented by a gang of youths, made 33 desperate 999 calls over seven years. But she was accused of 'over-reacting' and, unable to bear the torment any more, she killed herself and her daughter by setting fire to their car near their home in Barwell, Leicestershire.
Mrs May will announce the appointment of Baroness Newlove - whose husband Garry was murdered after standing up to drunken vandals - as the Government's new 'champion for active, safer communities'.
She will say: 'Too often we hear stories of victims who are passed from pillar to post, from the police to environmental services to the housing department before being passed back to the police again. 'We hear about victims who call the police on dozens of occasions but aren't taken seriously and in many cases are ignored altogether. So as part of our reforms to antisocial behaviour powers, we will give victims and communities the right to force the authorities to take action where they fail to do so.'
The HMIC's study found millions of acts of drunken loutishness and vandalism are going unreported as they have become 'normalised'.
The basic task of keeping the peace had been relegated to a 'second-order consideration' for officers who were obsessed with meeting targets for recorded crimes, he added.
The 'Stop the Rot' report showed that last year, 3.5million acts of anti-social behaviour were reported. But this represents only one in four of the estimated real total, meaning an astonishing 14million such incidents were carried out - one every two seconds.
The report warned that police forces are routinely ignoring thousands of repeat victims of harassment and thuggery. Forces often mark such calls as 'low priority' because they do not qualify as crimes. As a result, no action is taken.
A separate HMIC report in July found that just 11 per cent of officers are visible and available to the public at any one time, and more were available on Monday morning than when they might most be needed, on Saturday nights when there is more drunken aggression.
Mrs May indicated she will forge ahead with plans to scrap the antisocial behaviour order, which she said had become a badge of honour among thugs. She wants to replace the Asbo with a far simpler, less bureaucratic punishment to keep thugs in check.
Labour introduced a multitude of policies aimed at combating antisocial behaviour, including Asbos. But last year Home Secretary Alan Johnson admitted Labour had 'coasted' on the issue.
The lengths you need to go to in order to get help against louts in Britain
Mother stands in front of train
When a gang of drunken football yobs began hurling foul abuse at a mother and her five-year-old son on a train, she presumed someone would intervene. But the driver refused to call the police or stop the train and the guard was nowhere to be seen.
Faced with giving in or standing up to the 30-strong group, Lisa Robinson decided to take them on.
When the train reached her station she got off and stood in front of it, refusing to move until the driver called police. Rail company Arriva then terminated the train there, leaving the abusive fans to make their own way home.
Yesterday Mrs Robinson said: ‘It was a terrifying experience, but I’m glad I did it. It was a victory for ordinary people.’
The 41-year-old mother had been on a day out with her husband Peter, 61, and their son Harry to celebrate his fifth birthday. The couple, civil servants from Ystrad Mynach near Caerphilly in South Wales, had taken Harry to Cardiff before returning home on the Arriva service.
As they boarded the two-carriage train on Saturday September 25, they realised it was full of drunken Cardiff City fans who had just seen their team beat Millwall.
The family tried to ignore the shouting and swearing hooligans, but when the train arrived at a station and the gang began abusing a woman on the platform, Mrs Robinson decided to intervene. ‘I walked down to the group and asked the main perpetrator to stop swearing,’ she said. ‘They then turned their abuse on me, calling me a ‘‘dyke’’ and a string of four-letter words.
‘Nobody said anything. I was terrified. I wanted to alert the guard, but there was no way into the next carriage so we were completely trapped. ‘Then they swore at my husband, who was sitting with Harry, and taunted him about his age. By the time the train set off again I was crying and shaking.’ She was so frightened she pulled the emergency handle at the next station.
But she said that when the driver got into the carriage, he simply reset the alarm and went back to drive the train, ignoring her husband’s request to call the police.
Mrs Robinson added: ‘The train carried on for another two stops, with the abuse continuing, until it arrived at our station, Ystrad Mynach. When I got off I had Harry in my arms and he was crying. The driver completely ignored us and told us to take it up with the guard. We had not seen one for the entire journey – I think he had been too frightened to intervene.
‘It was then I decided to take direct action. I spoke to the driver who again ignored me – he wouldn’t even take his sunglasses off to talk to me. ‘So I handed Harry to Peter, got on to the tracks and stopped the train from leaving the station. Some of the football yobs got off to give me more abuse and take pictures of me on their mobiles.’
She said the guard then appeared and asked her to move, which she refused to do. She eventually moved after the station controller promised her he would not move the train and that the police would be called. Two British Transport Police officers arrived and, after discussions with railway officials, the train was terminated.
Mrs Robinson said yesterday that she was glad she had made a stand and would do it again. ‘I think too often these yobs are allowed to get away with it,’ she added. ‘When the thugs started kicking off, one woman said to me that I should accept it as it was just the world we live in. But I refuse to live in a society where this sort of thing goes unpunished.
‘Arriva sent me flowers and apologies, but what they really need to do is plan to make sure these things don’t happen. They knew there was a football game on and should have laid on extra staff. Instead, they had one guard who I’m convinced was hiding in the other carriage. ‘I still can’t believe the driver ignored my husband when he asked him to phone the police.’
Peter Northcott, head of stations at Arriva Trains Wales, said: ‘We take all complaints very seriously and I personally contacted Mr and Mrs Robinson on the day of this incident. A full investigation is taking place with the British Transport Police.’
A spokesman for British Transport Police said: ‘Inquiries, including viewing CCTV and speaking to witnesses who were on the train, which was travelling between Penarth and Bargoed, are ongoing.’
British Charity Commission covers up for a Warmist crook
Christopher Booker
Next weekend, as delegates from 194 countries gather in South Korea for a crucial meeting of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, their big talking point will be whether the IPCC’s chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri should resign – as a recent report from the world’s leading scientific academies seemed strongly to hint he should. The delegates face a dilemma. If they sack him, it would be a serious blow to the reputation of the panel, which has been central to the global warming scare since its founding in 1988. If he stays, it could severely damage the authority of its next major report, due in four years’ time.
Last winter, Dr Pachauri’s reputation took a hammering. On the one hand, there was the exposure of all those glaring and alarmist scientific errors in the IPCC’s last major report, produced under his guidance in 2007. On the other was the revelation in this newspaper of how his prestige as the “world’s top climate official” had coincided with a massive expansion in the fortunes of Teri, his Delhi-based research institute. Not only had Pachauri been appointed as an adviser to some of the richest banks and investment funds in the world, but Teri’s empire had mushroomed to include branches in Europe, North America, Dubai, Japan and South-East Asia.
When Dr Richard North and I came to examine this empire, our interest was drawn to Teri Europe, based in a suburban house in south London, which is registered under British law as a charity and is obliged to publish its accounts on the Charity Commission website. When we looked at these, however, they seemed rather odd. The figures showed the charity’s income and expenditure rising steadily in its early years – but from 2006 onwards they suddenly plunged to below £10,000 a year.
This was significant because £10,000 is the threshold below which a charity does not have to publish full accounts. Yet we knew that in these years Teri Europe was rapidly expanding, receiving sums way above that threshold. These included several payments from the UK government, such as £30,000 for the services of an employee of Dr Pachauri’s Delhi office to act as his co-editor on the IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report.
When we approached Teri Europe with our evidence, the charity’s secretary immediately admitted that there were “anomalies” in the accounts. The Charity Commission agreed to investigate. Not the least point of interest was that the charity’s trustees – “responsible,” in the commission’s words, “for approving the accounts before submission” – included, alongside Dr Pachauri, two other luminaries of the global warming establishment. Sir John Houghton was a founder of the IPCC, and had long played a key role in it. Sir Crispin Tickell was one of Houghton’s most influential allies back in 1988, as “our man at the UN” and as the adviser who talked Mrs Thatcher into enthusiasm for global warming at that crucial moment (a fervour she later disavowed).
Since it seemed that both Teri Europe and the trustees were in serious breach of the Charity Commission’s rules, this has led over recent months to a protracted series of exchanges with the commission.
First, the names of Houghton and Tickell swiftly disappeared from the list of trustees. Then, in May, after an audit by a firm of accountants, the commission’s website showed dramatically revised figures for one of the three years in question. The charity’s income for 2008 had now risen from £8,000 to £103,980, its expenditure from £3,000 to £97,419. But the figures for the previous two years were unchanged. The commission explained that it had allowed this “to save the charity a considerable amount in accounting fees”. It also claimed that the errors were due to the charity’s “inexperience in preparing accounts”, though the figures for earlier years showed no sign of “inexperience”.
I therefore put 10 searching questions to the commission. Why, for instance, was its website continuing to give false information? Would the commission show equal leniency to other bodies found to have provided misleading accounts, since normally a charity would be severely penalised for such offences?
When eventually I had a lengthy response it didn’t give a direct answer to any of my questions, except to say they were not prepared to disclose the date on which Houghton and Tickell had resigned as trustees. But clearly the commission had been embarrassed by my questions, since over the next few weeks revised figures for two more years appeared online. Income for 2007 rose from £9,000 to £49,878, for 2006 from £7,000 to £16,610 – showing that nearly £150,000 had not previously been disclosed. And, as can be seen from the commission’s website, the accounts are now shown to have been up to “1,246 days overdue”.
Doubtless, compared to the difficulties Dr Pachauri may face next weekend in holding on to the post which has helped him so to extend his institute’s fortunes, these accounting anomalies in one of its branches may seem pretty small beer. But an important question remains: why, when they came to light, did the Charity Commission struggle so long and hard to give this particular charity such an extraordinarily easy ride?
Grammar for graduates: British building society [Thrift] hires teacher to improve recruits' written English
Bosses at a building society are so concerned about workers’ written English that they are giving them grammar lessons, it has emerged. The Leeds Building Society realised it had a problem when senior executives looked at internal reports produced by recent graduates and couldn’t understand them.
Managers feared that badly written letters would irritate its customers – many of whom are part of a generation well-schooled in the three Rs. If staff could misplace a comma in a letter, they might also misplace a figure, they worried.
And so, the 135-year-old firm, one of Britain’s oldest financial institutions, has recruited a retired A-level English teacher to give staff a proper grounding in traditional grammar and punctuation.
Staff of all ages have joined the classes, which cover punctuation, parts of speech, sentences, paragraph construction and concise writing, the building society said. It denied standards had slipped, but one manager said: ‘The executives could not understand the reports being sent to them.’
Kim Rebecchi, sales and marketing director, said: ‘We felt that, while the standard of formal English within the society was strong, our employees are from very varied and diverse educational backgrounds, as well as being from many different age groups.
‘This means that, while style and quality are good and broadly the same, there are some areas for improvement and we particularly wanted to create a more formal and consistent approach to our writing, focusing on clarity and brevity.’
Four sessions have been laid on for 20 staff by a teacher in Leeds. Mrs Rebecchi added that the sessions had proved ‘thought-provoking’ and sparked ‘healthy debate’.
The building society, founded in 1875, is among growing numbers of firms offering training in the three Rs to recruits from school and college. About one in five employers run some form of remedial training, according to the CBI.
Even teaching assistants at a primary school in Havant, near Portsmouth, are to be given English lessons, it has emerged, after criticism from inspectors. Ofsted warned their poor grammar and use of slang set a bad example to pupils at Trosnant Junior School.
Meanwhile, a series of industry bosses have questioned the calibre of jobseekers. Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco’s chief executive, has warned that standards were ‘still woefully low in too many schools’ and Sir Stuart Rose, Marks & Spencer’s boss, said too many school-leavers ‘cannot do reading... cannot do arithmetic... cannot do writing’. Sir Michael Rake, BT’s chairman, said education standards were a ‘disgrace’ after receiving applications from ‘illiterate’ school-leavers.
Critics claim teachers and lecturers fail to correct rigorously students’ slips. They also say exams and syllabuses don’t put enough emphasis on standards of English.
Last year, separate research found that British students have a worse grasp of English than many from overseas. A study at Imperial College London found British undergraduates made three times more grammatical and spelling errors than counterparts from Singapore, China and Indonesia, who count English as their second language.
Dr Bernard Lamb, who did the research, said: ‘We need to raise the very poor standards of English of the home students by more demanding syllabuses and exams, more explicit teaching and examining of English (including grammar, spelling and punctuation), and by consistent and constructive correction of errors.’
The GWPF’s graph, displayed on the GWPF's homepage masthead, showing that the global average annual temperature hasn’t changed this century, drawn against a nice blue backdrop, is making a few people see red. Why this is I don’t exactly know as their logic, in contrast to their anger, isn’t entirely clear. Perhaps it is because it neatly summarises the uncertainties in climate science as well as common misconceptions (as was the intention) that some commentators find too uncomfortable to address, instead becoming deniers of basic scientific data. It certainly seems a difficult fact for some, but inconvenience is one thing, facts are another.
Those who complain that the graph is wrong, if they are to be fair and consistent, should now target the Royal Society in their sights as it has admitted this in its recent brochure on the science of climate change that the recent spell of warming ended in 2000.
It is not alone. The Journal Science has said the pause in global temperatures is real, as do many refereed scientific papers in numerous journals. Also in State of the Climate in 2008, a special supplement to the August Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, no less, confirmed that in the past ten years the HadCRUT3 temperature data (there are problems with this data set regarding its reliability and how it calculates averages but it is probably the best we’ve got) shows no increase whatsoever. Their analysis showed that the world warmed by 0.07 +/- 0.07 deg C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 deg C expected by the IPCC. Corrected for the large 1998 El Nino event (that made 1998 the hottest year on record) and its sister La Nina, the last decade’s trend is perfectly flat. There were even comments in the so-called Climategate emails along the lines of the temperature not increasing and “it’s a travesty” that we can’t explain it.
Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit also holds this view, saying yes in a BBC interview in response to the question; Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically significant global warming.
We live in the warmest decade, no one doubts that (though possibly not as warm as it was 1000, 2000 and 3000 years ago), and this explains why the world’s warmest years are clustered during that period. Look at the order of the warmest years, however, and you will see they are jumbled up and sit well within each other’s errors of measurement. There is no upward trend, just a plateau.
The latest warm period began in 1980. This means we have had 30 years of it. It is clear from looking at the data that it is composed of two distinct periods and it is not cherry picking to identify these as they stand out in the data. There is the period 1980 – 1995 when the world warmed, and the period 1995 – 2010 when it didn’t increase its temperature. We are told, by some, that 30 years is about the minimum for statistically significant climatic data to emerge. However, at 15 years each these two periods are now of equal statistical significance. If the standstill continues then it will soon become the dominant climatic factor of the past 30 years.
It is interesting to also note that the warming between 1980 and 1990 was not in itself statistically significant. This means that it was only the 5-year warming period 1990 -1995 (before it ceased) that has made all the difference to the statistics and significance of Earth’s warming in the past 30 years!
No climate computer model predicted the recent standstill but they have been used with hindsight to explain it. It has been suggested that natural cycles, oceanic cooling and solar influences, are responsible. The Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions all of which had programmed into them the 0.20 deg C long-term IPCC trend. They found that in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills, but none of 15 years. If one took that 15-year figure at face value it would mean that the data already accumulated has falsified the IPCC’s basic assumptions about the rate of warming. However, bearing in mind that the proposed explanation for the hiatus was arrived at post-hoc and relies on the same computer models that failed to predict it, one should be cautious. Modelling is one thing, real-world data is another and we should never confuse the two.
So whilst a few might not like it, there is nothing wrong with the GWPF’s temperature graph which is based on freely available HadCRUT3 data. In fact, it would be scientifically justifiable to replace it with a constant straight line with data scattered around the mean (the scatter between 2009 and previous years is insignificant). The graph is a useful discussion point that illuminates some of the problems in climatic research today. It has achieved its purpose in encapsulating a basic scientific fact about climate change and in stimulating debate.
Light drinkers denied IVF to save NHS cash... and even the alcohol intake of HUSBANDS can count against couples
British bureaucrats just love saying no. Particularly if it will upset people. That really gives them a horn
Women who drink fewer than two glasses of wine a day are being denied free IVF as NHS trusts impose strict rules on who gets fertility treatment.
Even those who barely drink at all could be turned down if their partners are deemed to be exceeding recommended alcohol limits.
Health trusts insist they are simply following Department of Health guidelines which warn against excessive drinking, particularly in pregnancy, but experts have accused them of discriminating solely to save money.
Critics say there is no evidence that those who drink slightly more than the recommended limit will be any less successful with IVF.
Up to one in five of the 66 Primary Care Trusts in England say they would refuse treatment to couples if either of them drink more than the Department of Health’s recommended weekly limit of 14 units for women and 21 for men.
And in response to a Daily Mail Freedom of Information request, many more said that although there was no specific alcohol policy, doctors could refuse IVF if they believed patients were drinking too much.
It is up to GPs to establish how much couples drink when they go for their first IVF treatment consultation through a series of detailed questions on their habits. Typically, a small glass of wine contains one-and-a-half units. So a woman drinking just two a night would consume 21 units a week, well over the ‘safe’ limit. According to the Department of Health, up to 10million adults – one in three men and one in five women – regularly drink at a level considered ‘hazardous’ to their health.
Infertile couples are entitled to three cycles of free fertility treatment on the NHS, which costs around £2,500 a course.
To qualify, women must meet strict criteria including being under 39 and not having a child from a previous relationship.
Many trusts will also turn them down if they are obese or smoke, as both are believed to reduce the chance of conception.
But fertility experts say there is no evidence that drinking slightly more than a moderate amount makes IVF any less successful.
However women are often advised to cut down to just two or three drinks a week once they start their first cycle as this may increase their chances of conceiving.
Stephen Davies, a GP and spokesman for the British Fertility Society, said: ‘This is very unfair. There is no evidence that drinking before IVF reduces its chance of success. ‘IVF is not seen as a priority treatment so they are simply looking at ways of cutting back their spending.
Trusts are constantly putting up new barriers and it is simply a way of cost-cutting.’ Susan Freeman, of the charity Infertility Network UK, said: ‘We would like to see people offered advice to help them cut back on drinking, rather than being banned from IVF altogether.
‘They should get advice on how to follow a healthy lifestyle – but should be helped, not just turned away.’ Many NHS trusts face huge financial shortfalls and are looking for ways to make cuts.
This month it emerged that several trusts had cut the number of IVF cycles to one or two per couple with one trust, Warrington, stopping funding altogether.
Several British Muslim schools forcing EVERY pupil to wear the veil - and regulators approve
At least three Muslim faith schools are forcing girls as young as 11 to wear face-covering veils with the blessing of Ofsted inspectors, it emerged yesterday. One of the schools insists that fees are paid in cash and warns parents against speaking to the local education authority.
All three schools have been approved by education watchdog Ofsted, which inspects private faith schools to ensure they prepare pupils for life in modern Britain and 'promote tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions'.
The schools' dress codes yesterday provoked anger among mainsteam Muslims, who warned that pupils were in danger of being 'brainwashed'.
The three schools causing concern were Madani Girls' School in Tower Hamlets, east London, Jamea Al Kauthar, in Lancaster and Jameah Girls' Academy in Leicester. All three are independent, fee-paying, single-sex schools catering for girls aged 11 to 18.
They insist that when girls are travelling to and from school they wear the niqab, a face veil leaving the eyes exposed, or the head-to-toe burka, which covers the eyes with a mesh screen.
School uniform rules listed on Madani's website have been removed but an earlier version, seen by the Sunday Telegraph, said: 'The present uniform conforms to the Islamic Code of dressing. Outside the school, this comprises of the black Burka and Niqab.'
The admission application form warns that girls will be 'appropriately punished' for failing to wear the correct uniform.
Madani, which charges fees of £1,900-a-year, also says on its website: 'All payments should be made in cash. We do not accept cheques.' Its school rules state: 'If parents are approached by the Education Department regarding their child's education, they should not disclose any information without discussing it with the committee.'
Ofsted's 2008 assessment gives the school a 'satisfactory' rating and makes no mention of the uniform code or warning to parents.
The 260-pupil school was at the centre of a separate row in 2008 when Conservative councillors accused Labour-controlled Tower Hamlets Council of subsidising Madani school by allowing the school to buy its premises for £320,000 below market value.
The council sold the Victorian building to Madani's trustees for £1.33 million even though a valuation at the time said it was worth £1.65 million. Tower Hamlets said the agreed price of £1.33million was market value in 2004 and the sale was delayed to allow the school to raise funds.
At Jamea Al Kauthar - rated 'outstanding' by Ofsted earlier this year - rules which appear on its website state: 'Black Jubbah [smock-like outer garment] and dopatta [shawl] is compulsory as well as purdah [veil] when leaving and returning to Jamea. Scarves are strictly not permitted.'
The website also lists a wide range of banned items, including family photographs, and warns: 'Students must not cut their hair, nor remove hair from between their eyebrows. Doing so will lead to suspention (sic).'
Jameah Girls' Academy, which charges £1,750 a year for primary-age pupils and £1,850 for secondary, was rated 'good' by Ofsted in 2007. It states in its rules: 'Uniform, as set out in the pupil/parent handbook, which comprises of headscarf and habaya for all pupils, and niqab for girls attending the secondary years, to be worn during journeys to and from The Academy.'
Critics claimed the policies could damage relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Ed Husain, co-director of Quilliam, the counter-extremist think-tank, said: 'It is absurd that schools are enforcing this outdated ritual – one that which sends out a damaging message that Muslims do not want to fully partake in British society.
'The enforcing of the niqab on young girls is not a mainstream Islamic practice – either in Britain or in most Muslim-majority countries. 'It is a desert practice which belongs to another century and another world.'
Independent schools will be able to apply to become state-funded 'free schools' under the Coalition's education policy, although faith schools will be required to offer a quota of places to pupils of other religions first.
Mr Husain added: 'Although it is not the government's job to dictate how its citizens dress, it should nonetheless ensure that such schools are not bankrolled or subsidised by the British taxpayer.'
Dr Taj Hargey, an imam and chairman of the Muslim Educational Trust of Oxford, said: 'This is very disturbing and sets a dangerous precedent. 'It means that Muslim children are being brainwashed into thinking they must segregate and separate themselves from mainstream society.'
Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP who has attempted to bring in a Private Members' Bill to ban wearing of the burka in public, said: 'It is very sad in 21st century Britain that three schools are effectively forcing girls as young as 11 to hide their faces.
'How on earth are these young ladies going to grow up as part of a fully integrated society if they are made to regard themselves as objects at such a young age?'
Muslim woman fired from British estate agency for REFUSING to wear a headscarf
Hmmmm... I am inclined to think that any business has a right to set down dress standards required at work. That fact that the same standard was not required of non-Muslim employees rather destroys that defence, however -- JR
A Muslim woman has been awarded more than £13,500 after she was sacked for refusing to wear a headscarf at the estate agency where she worked. Ghazala Khan - a 31-year-old non-practising Muslim - was fired less than two weeks into her job at a company run by traditional Muslim businessman Masood Ghafoor simply because she refused to cover her hair.
Mr Ghafoor told Miss Khan, who had nine years experience in the trade, that his wife and female relatives all wore full veils or burkas, telling her that her parents had given her 'far too much freedom'.
A tribunal heard that Miss Khan had been employed to run Mr Ghafoor's Go Go Real Estate office in Leeds, West Yorkshire, in June 2009. However, within days of working there she was left feeling 'very uncomfortable and intimidated' when Mr Ghafoor put it to her that she had not been brought up as a 'good Muslim' and that if she had been his daughter she would not be allowed to work and would have been long since 'married off'.
He asked her to wear a headscarf at work - even though white non-Muslim women he employed in the same office were never asked to and never did. On the day she was due to start her third week in the job, Mr Ghafoor told her not to bother coming in.
When she eventually caught up with him later that evening he told her that members of the Muslim community had been 'gossiping' and suggested that she was not 'respectable' and that there might be 'something going on' between her and members of staff.
Mr Ghafoor added that his cousin Shakeel, who was also employed in the office, was unhappy working with a female especially as she did not wear a headscarf, was not religious and was Westernised.
Graduate Miss Khan, who represented herself at the hearing in Leeds, won her claim for discrimination on the grounds of her lack of religion or belief, by dismissing her and sex discrimination.
She has been awarded £13,566.67 for injury to feelings, loss of earnings and unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal concluded: 'Ms Khan described herself as British Pakistani, meaning that she is of Asian racial origin and of Pakistani national origin. 'She also described herself as a non-practising Muslim, meaning that she identified with the Muslim religon but did not attend her local mosque, pray regularly or cover her hair. 'The respondent on the other hand is a practising Muslim with traditional religious and cultural beliefs.'
The tribunal heard that at her job interview Miss Khan had worn a grey pinstripe trouser suit, described as 'conventional modern professional dress'.
Mr Ghafoor wanted her to run the office when he was out on business, telling her he wanted 'someone professional in the front office' and she began work there on June 17 last year.
The tribunal heard that Mr Ghafoor had originally told Miss Khan there was no problem with the way she dressed. 'He was happy that she was fully covered up by the black trousers and long sleeved blouses and tops that she wore to work,' the tribunal heard. 'By the time of the hearing, he was saying that she had chosen to wear clothing of a very revealing nature.'
After sacking Miss Khan on June 30, Mr Ghafoor went on to acknowledge that Miss Khan had not done anything wrong at work and that it was not her fault. 'He was happy with her work, it was just that they could not have a woman working in the office,' the tribunal ruled.
'He added that they had had a 'problem' like that before with what he described as a Westernised young Muslim Asian woman working there. 'They had dismissed her too after a few days for essentially the same reason. 'In her case, however, the respondent had found her another job in a friend's office.
The tribunal concluded: 'We find that the respondent treated the claimant less favourably by dismissing her and not his white women employees because she would not cover her hair. 'That refusal on Ms Khan's part was owing to a lack of belief that her religion obliged her to do so.
'Whilst she identified with the Muslim faith, she did not agree with its practices as applied to women. 'That was the ground for her dismissal, although it can be said that the refusal to wear a headscarf was simply a manifestation of a lack of belief. 'We do not think, however, that such a narrow interpretation is appropriate on these facts.
'For the authorities indicate that an employer is entitled to maintain a 'secular' workplace by eluding manifestations of religious belief from working practices and dress, if it deems it appropriate in the circumstances. 'We can see no reason why that principle should not apply to an employee in the circumstances of this case. 'Further, we decided that a purely cultural interpretation of the requirement to wear a headscarf was too narrow.
'We agree with Ms Khan that the requirement is a mixture of the cultural and the religious in so far as it is derived from a particular interpretation of Islamic scriptures.
'As for sex discrimination, there was direct evidence that Ms Khan's sex as a woman played a part in the decision to dismiss. 'Cousin Shakeel did not want to work with a Muslim woman who did not cover her hair. 'The covering is an expression of female modesty. 'He would have treated any male employee more favourably by working with him, all other things being equal. 'Accordingly we found that the discrimination was equally on the ground of the claimant's sex.'
The tribunal concluded: 'Our impression of Ms Khan was of an articulate young woman who genuinely needed a job and would not have behaved in the way described by Mr Ghafoor.'
Mr Ghafoor was cleared of race discrimination as the tribunal ruled he would have treated black or white female converts the same as he treated Ms Khan.
One autistic kid used as an excuse for another intrusion into family life
He should be running around laughing and playing with the other children at his nursery.
But because he watches so much TV, one three-year-old boy has already become cut off from his peers, trapped in his own ‘Thomas the Tank Engine’ world instead.
The toddler, known only as Max, has spent so long watching the show that he barely speaks to other children at his nursery school and instead wanders around in a daze obsessively repeating phrases from the TV programme.
He watches the cartoon for as many as five hours a day – and doctors fear that it has had a long-term effect on his development and communication skills.
The programme is full of catchphrases, such as the character Thomas saying he wants to be a ‘really useful engine’ and exclaiming ‘well bust my buffers’, or those of his faithful coaches Annie and Claribel ‘We feel so full,we feel so full’.
Another well-known phrase goes ‘Silly old Gordon fell in the ditch, fell in the ditch, fell in the ditch,’ from the episode which shows the big green engine purposely running into a ditch to avoid pulling a goods’ train.
The boy, who lives in the U.S, is being treated by a specialist in California. Doctors are so alarmed that they have reported his behaviour in a paper published in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics.
The youngster’s mother reportedly lets him watch as much TV as he likes. He also likes to watch the Disney Channel, which includes popular programmes such as Hannah Montana and Phineas and Ferb.
However, his case is by no means unique and experts warn that children who watch too much television may be in danger of suffering learning difficulties later on.
Some doctors believe the problem is becoming so widespread that toddlers younger than two should be banned from watching any TV at all.
Researchers in Britain fear that television is increasingly hindering children’s communication skills and ability to concentrate as well as contributing to rates of obesity, because screen-based activities mean they are less inclined to be physically active.
They are considering drawing up strict guidelines which could even advise parents to ban toddlers from watching TV.
Stuart Biddle is chairman of the ‘sedentary behaviour and obesity’ working party, which is currently considering guidelines for the Department of Health. He said: ‘We are considering what guidelines should say, and a statement around no television for the under-twos is potentially one of the more controversial ones.’
Some countries are already considering a similar policy. last year, the Australian government began drawing up guidance suggesting a ban for children under two. The advice, which is being finalised, also recommends that those aged between two and five should watch a maximum of one hour a day.
France has also banned any programmes specifically being made for those under five.
British school STAFF to be given English lessons so their bad habits don't hamper pupils
Primary school staff are to be given English lessons because Ofsted inspectors believe their accents, poor grammar and use of slang set pupils a bad example.
Two teaching assistants at Trosnant Junior School in Havant, near Portsmouth, were heavily criticised in a report for their weak grasp of written and spoken English. Now, a consultant has been drafted in to teach staff to use ‘the Queen’s English in the classroom’.
The Ofsted inspectors claimed the assistants’ strong accents and use of slang were hampering children’s learning. Their report said: ‘Adults do not always demonstrate grammatical accuracy in speaking and writing.’ It cited the phrase ‘I likes football’ as an example, and gave the school 12 months to improve.
Headmaster Jim Hartley admitted there was a problem with the use of regional dialect, known as ‘Pompey slang’, in the classroom. He said: ‘This is not denigrating the Pompey accent or dialect – we are all proud of where we come from. ‘I accept however that bad grammar is not acceptable in the classroom, which is why we have taken the inspectors’ criticisms constructively.’
Kathryn Cooke, 43, whose eight-year-old son Ryan goes to the school, said: ‘The Pompey accent is not far off being Cockney. It is very common and very lazy. You would hope they would tone it down while in the classroom.’
Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: ‘Youngsters cannot be expected to improve their English if they are set a bad example by the adults who are supposed to be teaching them.’
A building society has introduced grammar lessons for staff after senior executives found recent graduates could not write properly. Leeds Building Society has recruited a retired teacher to introduce a ‘more formal and consistent approach’ to writing.
Death rates INCREASED by 20mph zone... and getting rid of cameras reduces accidents
Reducing the speed limit to 20mph in all residential streets does not significantly improve road safety, an official report has revealed.
Towns around the country [Britain] are planning to introduce the limit in the belief that lower speeds save lives. However, analysis of the first citywide scheme in Portsmouth has shown the number of people killed or seriously injured actually increased after the speed limit was reduced from 30mph.
While the 20mph limit has been widely implemented in specific streets, for example near primary schools, the case for reducing the limit in all residential streets appears to have been badly damaged by the Department for Transport report.
Analysis by consultants Atkins, on behalf of the Department for Transport, found the average number of people killed or seriously injured annually in Portsmouth rose from 18.7 to 19.9 after the scheme was launched in 2007.
Motorists' average speeds reduced by only 1.3mph to 18.5mph. The Portsmouth speed limit is not enforced by speed humps or cameras, instead relying on motorists obeying the law.
Previous studies have found that 20mph zones in which traffic-calming measures are also deployed produce bigger reductions in drivers' average speeds.
City centre 20mph zones have been introduced in Newcastle upon Tyne, Oxford, Edinburgh and Bristol.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat transport minister, has given his backing to 20mph limits. Earlier this year he said: 'For a child being hit at 30mph and 20mph is the difference between life and death. 'But this is also about making our town centres more attractive places to live and work, and reducing carbon emissions by encouraging people to cycle or walk.'
A spokesman for the transport department said: 'This report by an independent contractor on the Portsmouth scheme is one of several research documents available to help councils decide whether they want to put in place 20mph zones or limits. 'It is up to local authorities to make these decisions using their knowledge of local roads and in consultation with local communities.'
Meanwhile a town where all the speed cameras were switched off has reported a sharp drop in the number of accidents. Over the past year there have been 14 minor and two serious accidents in the streets of Swindon monitored by cameras. This compared with 15 minor, five serious and one fatal accident in the same streets the previous year when cameras were operational.
Roderick Bluh, leader of the Tory-controlled council, said: 'it is beginning to look as though we were right all along when we said these cameras were revenue raisers.'
British business has continued to hire more foreign workers during the downturn even as the number of UK-born people in jobs has dropped sharply, analysis by the Financial Times shows.
Latest official data show the number of UK-born workers fell by 654,000 between 2008 and 2010, while FT calculations, based on data for the same period, show the number of working migrants has risen by 139,000 – some 100,000 born outside the European Union and the remainder within.
The figures reflect the differing impact of the recession on different parts of the UK economy, with jobs such as those in the service sector, where migrant workers tend to be concentrated, escaping lightly.
However, a wide-ranging FT analysis of the impact of immigration on jobs, wages and public services also highlights the potential economic cost of the attempt by David Cameron, prime minister, to slash net migration to 1990s levels.
One calculation, based on figures from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, indicated that such a move would cost the UK as much as £33bn in lost output over the next five years if it was introduced in 2011.
Research published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that recent migrant workers from eastern Europe are net contributors to UK public finances, while native Britons are a net drain. The likelihood that workers from outside the EU contribute even more raises further questions about the government’s decision to limit the number of non-EU people who can work in the UK.
The cap has already angered companies, while Vince Cable, business secretary, has said it poses a threat to economic recovery. George Osborne, chancellor, is a firm supporter of the limit but some Treasury officials are worried about any reduction in tax receipts.
The OBR in June produced estimates for trend GDP growth without taking account of the government’s hope to cut immigration to 1990s levels – which would mean a net inflow of 60,000 a year compared with the OBR’s assumption of 140,000.
FT research suggests that, leaving other assumptions unchanged, if the net flow was reduced by that amount next year, GDP would be about 0.8 per cent lower at the end of the parliament, with a cumulative loss in output of about £33bn.
Since Mr Cameron has only promised to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands over the life of the parliament, rather than in a single year, the FT calculation offers only a rough indication of how such a cut might affect GDP. Some economists also argue that GDP is too crude a measure to assess the financial benefits of immigration because it does not take into account the cost of providing public services and housing to new arrivals.
The government has commissioned its own independent report on the expected economic impact of the cap, which will be debated by the cabinet before an annual limit is set for next year.
Britain's so-called conservatives to enact PC equality law which means ANYONE can sue for ANYTHING that offends them
Thank goodness I don't live in Britain. With my Australian bluntness, I would be in trouble in no time
"Ministers yesterday announced that the vast bulk of Labour’s controversial Equality Act would be implemented immediately, despite concerns about its impact on business and office life.
The legislation, championed by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, introduces a bewildering range of rights which allow staff to sue for almost any perceived offence they receive in the workplace.
It creates the controversial legal concept of ‘third party harassment’, under which workers will be able to sue over jokes and banter they find offensive – even if the comments are aimed at someone else and they weren’t there at the time the comments were made.
They can sue if they feel the comments ‘violate their dignity’ or create an ‘intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.
A one-off incident is enough to sue – there is no need for the ‘victim’ to have warned the perpetrator that their comments are unwelcome. They could even have a case against their employer if a customer or contractor says something they find offensive.
"Strictly Come Dancing was hit by a string of viewers’ complaints following a quip directed at judge Craig Revel Horwood by contestant Paul Daniels.
Dozens of viewers contacted the BBC to protest after Daniels, 72, told Revel Horwood not to give up ‘his day job tasting sausages’ on the first show of the new series.
The Australian-born judge, 45, has openly talked about his homosexuality in the past and his life with partner Grant MacPherson.
Many viewers assumed Daniels was taunting him about his sexuality and vented their fury on a BBC website and on Twitter.
But it appeared last night that Daniels was actually referring to Revel Horwood’s upcoming role promoting British Sausage Week, which is launched on November 1.
Daniels, himself a former frontman of Sausage Week, wrote: ‘Media this morn trying to make me homophobic. Crazy. Why do journos and editors want to live in a nasty world of their own creation.’
NHS Hospitals told to come clean about their infection rates
Hospitals with high levels of infection from E.Coli and other deadly bugs are to be named and shamed by the Government.
NHS trusts will be forced to publish figures showing the number of cases suffering from a wide range of bugs, as part of efforts to help the public make an "informed choice" about where to go for treatment.
On Tuesday, Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, will tell the Conservative party conference that patients need to know more about the quality of services at different hospitals before they make decisions about their health.
He will say that from January all trusts must record and publish the rates of an infection called MSSA, a sister infection to the superbug MRSA, and that in future, rates of E.coli will also be included.
Currently hospital trusts are obliged to publish their rates of MRSA, and the bug Clostridium difficile, which is a particular risk for the elderly, but recording of other infections is only done on a voluntary basis.
Those figures which are held show a 37 per cent rise in cases of E.coli since 2005, with 25,532 cases in 2009. However, experts fear the voluntary nature of the scheme, means those hospitals with the worst records are least likely to provide data.
While the number of cases of MRSA is now falling, the rates of its sister infection MSSA have steadily risen since 2000, with more than 7,000 cases last year.
While MRSA is resistant to the powerful antibiotic drug methicillin, MSSA can be more easily treated, if it is detected.
However, the infections are equally deadly if allowed to go unchecked.
Last year a report by MPs found that eight in ten hospital infections were going unreported, with patients dying unnecessarily because hospitals had focused so much on MRSA and C. difficile.
The failure to monitor the other bugs - which account for 80 per cent of all infections - means it is impossible to know how many people are dying from infections they pick up in hospital, MPs warned.
In 2008, the actress Leslie Ash received a compensation payment of £5 million after being infected with MSSA, when it entered her spine during hospital treatment.
At the time, the NHS Litigation Authority said that the payout set a new record for compensation in a case of hospital-acquired infection.
Patient groups described it as a "wake-up call" for hospitals to improve their infection control.
Midwives have no time to care for new mothers, report warns
New mothers are left frightened and alone after childbirth, because midwives do not have time to care for them, a major study has warned.
The report by the National Childbirth Trust (NCT) says staff shortages have left increasing numbers of mothers feeling isolated at a time when they are desperate for reassurance.
The charity's poll of more than 1,200 first time mothers found 59 per cent did not get the "emotional support" they felt they needed after giving birth – compared with 51 per cent in a similar survey a decade ago. The NCT said the picture painted by new mothers was "shocking". Women who had undergone a caesarean section were the least happy about their experience.
Asked about the 24 hours following birth, 66 per cent said they had not received enough support, compared to 57 per cent of those who had a natural labour in hospital, and 24 per cent of those who gave birth at home.
Mothers who had gone through traumatic labours said they had been left to cry themselves to sleep, while others said overstretched midwives had no time to offer a kind word of reassurance.
In total, 42 per cent said there were not enough midwives to care for them, compared with 33 per cent, when the question was posed in 2000. Those who gave birth at home, or in a midwife-led birth centre, were less likely to describe shortages of midwives.
The NCT findings show that despite a large investment in maternity services, and pledges from the last Government to make care "woman-centred" with a choice of where to give birth, many women are being denied even basic care.
Among the poll of 1260 first time mothers, 44 per cent said they did not even get the physical help they needed, while 55 per cent said they did not get enough information or advice in the weeks after having their first child.
Anne Fox, the head of campaigns and public policy for the NCT, said; "It's clear postnatal care urgently needs improvement – our report paints a dreadful, shocking picture of care in the UK – we're letting women and their babies down. "Many of the problems these women highlight seem to be due to staff shortages or lack of visits once they had left hospital – and this issue needs to be addressed if the quality of postnatal care is to be improved, particularly for vulnerable women.
In the report, new mothers describe being "absolutely terrified" and alone during their first night in hospital, frightened to ask for help from staff who responded to them rudely. One mother said: "As soon as the baby was born, I felt I was on my own. I spent the first night after the birth of my son in floods of tears and unable to sleep as every time I closed my eyes the nightmare of my birth experience came flooding back. "Nobody came to check on me to see if I was OK, even though I know I was sobbing loudly and uncontrollably."
Louise Silverton, Deputy General Secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, described the report's findings as "disappointing," but said the study sent a compelling message to those in charge of NHS budgets, about the need to keep investing in maternity services.
British government scraps the 'no touching' rule for teachers in bid to let them assert more authority
‘No touch’ rules that discourage teachers from restraining or comforting children are to be scrapped, the Education Secretary said last night. Michael Gove also signalled the coalition was pushing ahead with controversial plans to give teachers a right to anonymity when faced by allegations from pupils.
‘At the moment if you want to become au fait with what this department thinks on how to keep order in class you have to read the equivalent of War and Peace,’ he said. ‘There are about 500 pages of guidance on discipline and another 500 pages on bullying. We will clarify and shrink that.
‘Teachers worry that if they assert a degree of discipline, one determined maverick pupil will say “I know my rights” and so teachers become reticent about asserting themselves.
‘There are a number of schools that have “no touch” policies and we are going to make clear this rule does not apply. I don’t believe you should be able to hit children. ‘But I do believe that teachers need to know they can physically restrain children, they can interpose themselves between two children that may be causing trouble, and they can remove them from the classroom.
‘The important thing is that teachers know they are in control, and this department and the justice system will back them.’
Insisting that teachers should be able to console victims of bullying, he made light-hearted reference to the David Cameron hug-a-hoodie story, joking: ‘Teachers should not have to think youths have to wear hoodies before they can comfort them.’
Mr Gove promised to give teachers a general right to search children for any items that are banned under a school’s rules.
At present, the list was too restrictive and a legal minefield, he added. He also vowed to speed up the timetable by which allegations against teachers have to be investigated, or dropped.
Just before the general election, the Labour government clarified guidance to say that teachers were allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ when dealing with troublesome pupils.
However, Ed Balls, who was Children’s Secretary under Gordon Brown, insisted it was a ‘myth’ that some schools employed no-contact policies.
Mr Gove said he wanted voluntary groups and city academies to take over units for excluded children, which are currently run by councils. He said the units were the ‘weak link in the chain’ and also promised that the pupil premium for schools taking poor children would survive the cutbacks.
Little repentance from hate-filled Warmist videographers
Mentioned yesterday on GREENIE WATCH was a Green/Left video that justified the murder of skeptics. It was justified as funny and warmly embraced by Britain's leading Leftist rag, The Guardian. Leftists never have been bothered by the killing of those who oppose them.
The idea that people should be violently killed because of their opinions was however greeted with widespread revulsion so the authors of the video have now stopped its circulation and apologized. Below is their apology:
Sorry. Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called 'No Pressure'.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis - writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website.
We'd like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.
At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.
Onwards and upwards,
Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team
More HERE. Video at link. More comments on the video here and here.
Climate folly of all the Scottish political parties
Comment below from Neil Craig in Scotland -- now up on the ChangeScotland site. Holyrood is the location of the Scottish parliament
LAST YEAR Holyrood, unanimously, passed the most restrictive "Climate Change" law in the world. Together with the closure of our nuclear plants this means that over the next 10 years we have to close down half, far and away the least expensive half, of our electricity production.
This unanimity was largely reflected in the Scots media with BBC Newsnight Scotland breaching its nominal commitment to impartiality by describing the passage of the Act as the "good news" of the day - the bad news being the not unrelated fact that the recession is deeper and worse in Scotland.
There is a close relationship between electricity usage & GNP. and Britain already has the highest ratio of GNP to electricity consumption of any large developed country so we might be quite lucky to get off with only halving Scotland's GNP as a result of halving our electricity production. Thus the Scots MSPs are unanimously saying that warming is so catastrophic that destroying half of Scotland's economy, even though the world CO2 reduction will be microscopic, is necessary.
Such unanimity in politics was common in the USSR. It is not expected in a democracy. If Scotland is a healthy democracy with parties who are genuinely free thinking then the evidence that we are experiencing catastrophic global warming must be so overwhelming and unarguable that it is worth destroying our economy simply to make what is, in terms of world CO2 production, only a token gesture.
There is, however, no evidence for catastrophic warming. None. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. There is a theory, described in computer models, but a theory is not evidence and computer models themselves are only an extension of theory. None of the models predicted in advance that we would have the cooling there has been since 1998, indeed they did not show the medieval warming period though it was already known. The scientific method consists of making observations, producing a theory that explains them and then testing the theory against future observations. The warming hypothesis fails the test of explaining all previous observations and thus cannot even be called scientific.
The claim of any warming at all depends on doubtful measurements, many taken at sites which, a century ago, were in countryside but which have now been urbanised, with a consequent significant increase in temperature. The warming claim also depends on the year chosen. If the start year is 1975, 1850 or 1600 we have had warming & alarmists usually start their graphs then. If the start year chosen is 1998, 1934 (in the US), 1000 or 6,000 BC, which would be equally legitimate, the globe is cooling. What we actually see is no clear upward or downward trend and a remarkably close correlation between temperature and the sunspot cycle.
CO2 levels are essentially irrelevant and any recent change is well within historic parameters. The Medieval warm period was about 1.5 degrees warmer than today and the well named Climate Optimum of 9-5,000 BC was as much as 4 degrees warmer - this was an era of hippopotamus filled lakes in the middle of the Sahara, the folk memory of which may be reflected in the Garden of Eden story. Obviously that was not "catastrophic" nor did any "tipping point" to runaway warming occur then.
There are many other reasons to doubt the alarmists - the repeated frauds and lies they have come up with; that some of them such as James Hansen, were involved in the previous global cooling story; that CO2 increase means crops and other plants grow faster, absorbing more CO2 and thus making the phenomenon self limiting; that only 3% of all the CO2 produced worldwide is by Man so we simply cannot be causing the disaster being claimed; that "environmentalists", have threatened us with dozens of catastrophe stories over the last 30 years, including global cooling, none of which have come close to being true; that despite the hype ("Netherlands under water by 2007") sea level refuses to show any significant rise (what we can see are some land masses rising and falling while the sea level barely changes); that we now know the Greenland ice cap has been there for at least 450,000 years and isn't that fragile; that we know of geoengineering methods of cutting global temperature at a small fraction of the trillions this scare has already cost.
The fact that this year, before the end of September, Scotland has experienced sub-zero temperatures, may also persuade some that the oft repeated official warnings of "mild winters" and "barbecue summers" have not proven entirely factual.
Life is too short to mention all the holes in the theory but suffice it to say that anybody who honestly believed CO2 was causing extinction level catastrophe would have to be demanding massive subsidies for nuclear power as the practical system that can provide large scale reliable power with far less CO2 than, for example, windmills (remembering that windmills need massive conventional back-up). Almost nobody pushing this scare does so and if those pushing it know it is a lie we should have no doubts.
Yet if all this is true (and I urge anybody to check) it is legitimate to ask why almost all our politicians and mainstream media warn us of catastrophic warming? Why do they say there is a "scientific consensus" on it?
The nature of this lie points to its creators. I have personally asked many hundreds of politicians, newspapers, broadcasters and alarmist websites worldwide to name 2 scientists who are part of this "consensus" and who are not funded by the state. The editor of the Independent and somebody on a South African website were able to give the same name (Professor James Lovelock who, seeing the climategate emails has largely reversed his position). Nobody else has managed even that.
Patrick Harvie MSP, asked on air, merely asserted that everybody knew it so he was not required to name anybody. It is a strange "scientific consensus" from which the large majority of scientists are excluded. In fact the largest single expression of scientist's opinions is from the Oregon Petition where 31,000 scientists have said the scare is false, but you won't see news reports on the state broadcasting service reporting that.
An example of the quality of government-supported alarmist science was given recently in a lecture by Scotland's Chief Science Advisor. Among a long list of counter factual statements was the howler that "global warming will extend day length." Day length is determined by the planet's axial tilt as any well informed schoolboy knows.
Per capita Scots get more scientific papers cited than any nation other than Switzerland. We have some of the world's best scientists yet the Lab/Libs chose the advisor and the SNP confirmed her appointment. This is not purely a dig at Holyrood - she is also on a quango called NERC with a £400 million budget essentially for promoting "environmental" scare stories.
In 2003 the OECD showed that government funding of science had negative value. The way the state has been funding only "science" and "scientists" who support alarmism while preventing sceptical research, when science is nothing but methodical scepticism, supports this disgraceful conclusion.
The explanation, or at least the only one that fits the facts, says much about the nature of modern politics. The great American writer H.L. Mencken once said "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." I do not easily come to believe that our entire political structure, including our nominally free media, whose standard of impartiality is set by the state owned BBC, is so completely corrupt that they would destroy our country simply to maintain power.
Unfortunately, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Since we have eliminated the possibility that we really are experiencing catastrophic warming as claimed and even eliminated the possibility that most proponents actually believe it, the truth that remains must be that virtually all our politicians and state controlled institutions are deliberately promoting this false "hobgoblin" for personal power and profit. I am forced to agree with Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who knows what censorship of debate and unanimous votes mean and says, "I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism"
The world economy is now back to growing at 5% annually. China and India are growing at 10%. There is no question that we could at least match their growth rate if those in charge were not preventing it. That they are deliberately preventing it, despite almost identical promises from all the main parties, is thus also undeniable. There is really nothing one could say about those in power which would be overly critical.
At last! An end to Britain's "elf 'n' safety" madness as meddling officials face fines if they ban events
Meddling officials who attempt to ban events or activities on the grounds that they breach red tape will themselves be threatened with huge fines under Government plans.
And emergency workers, teachers and office workers are to be freed from the compensation culture where someone must be held to account for everyday mishaps and accidents.
Margaret Thatcher’s former trade secretary Lord Young, who has drawn up a string of proposals accepted by David Cameron, says a decade of Labour laws and regulations will now be torn up.
The assault on the excesses of the health and safety culture will form a key part of the Tory Party conference which begins tomorrow in Birmingham, and is seen as a potential vote winner.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Lord Young unveiled plans which include:
* Local authorities who wrongly try to block events on health and safety grounds will be forced to pay large-scale compensation;
* No-win, no-fee advertising encouraging personal injury claims will face a major crackdown;
* Red tape that means many children never go on school outings is to be scrapped
* People performing first aid or Good Samaritan acts are to be exempted from being sued.
Lord Young, 78, said ‘petty tyrants’ had been allowed to flourish under Labour.
He said he had uncovered extraordinary examples, including a restaurant that would not give out toothpicks for fear of injury, a headteacher who told pupils not to walk under a conker tree without helmets and a council that banned a pancake race because it was raining.
‘It makes you wonder what sort of world we have come to,’ Lord Young said. ‘It has gone to such extremes. What I have seen everywhere is a complete lack of common sense. People have been living in an alternative universe.’
Lord Young said he was particularly concerned about council officials who often claimed powers to stop village fetes, sporting events or other events when they have none. In one example, organisers of the annual Whitsun cheese-rolling down a steep hill in the Cotswolds cancelled it this year after pressure from police and local authorities.
In future those affected by wrong decisions may go to the local government ombudsman who will be able to insist that a council pays compensation.
Asked how much local authorities would be forced to pay, Lord Young said: ‘Whatever the loss is. I want officials to think twice and make sure they have the authority. ‘This sort of nonsense has come from the last government trying to create a nanny state and trying to keep everybody in cotton wool.
‘Frankly if I want to do something stupid and break my leg or neck, that’s up to me. I don’t need a council to tell me not to be an idiot. I can be an idiot all by myself.’
He said the Government, which has approved his report, due to be published later this month, would also implement a crackdown on ‘ambulance-chasing’ personal injury firms. There will be restrictions on the way they advertise their services and a limit to speculative law suits.
‘The last government allowed no-win, no-fee advertising and we have seen an enormous rush of it, on afternoon TV particularly,’ Lord Young said. ‘A lot of them aren’t lawyers - they’re claims management companies. ‘People are being paid for making a claim. Legal expenses are now two or three times the claim. The biggest cost to the health service is legal fees. That’s going to stop.’
Schools are to be freed from burdensome regulations. Lord Young said: ‘Schools are not allowing pupils to go on days out because they are scared they will be liable if an accident happens. ‘That’s nonsense, and that’s not going to continue, unless a teacher is really negligent. In the ordinary course of events, accidents happen.’
The Health and Safety Executive enforces 202 primary regulations, a third of which were passed since Labour came to power in 1997.
Lord Young, who has an office in Downing Street, revealed that the Prime Minister has asked him to stay on to advise on turning public services into locally-owned co-operatives. Baroness Thatcher once said of him: ‘Other people brought me problems. He brought me solutions.’
For once I think I agree with Foxy: The guy is a contemptible Leftist bigot but he is entitled to express his opinion
"The Anti-Defamation League is criticizing what it says is the dark side of Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters, claiming imagery the British rock icon used in his latest tour is anti-Semitic.
Waters, a longtime vocal critic of Israel, takes aim at the Jewish nation's West Bank security fence during a segment of his 2010-2011 "The Wall Live" tour by using imagery associated with stereotypes about Jews and money, ADL officials say.
During Waters' recent performances of "Goodbye Blue Sky," an animated scene has projected images of planes dropping bombs in the shape of Jewish stars of David, followed by dollar signs -- an "outrageous" juxtaposition, according to Abraham Foxman, ADL's national director.
"While he insists that his intent was to criticize Israel's West Bank security fence, the use of such imagery in a concert setting seems to leave the message open to interpretation, and the meaning could easily be misunderstood as a comment about Jews and money," Foxman said in a statement.
"Of course Waters has every right to express his political views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through his music and stagecraft," Foxman's statement continued. "However, the images he has chosen, when put together in the same sequence, cross a line into anti-Semitism."
Junior doctor's apology to family as girl, 8, dies after not getting blood test
An inevitable consequence of Britain's overworked and under-trained junior doctors. Also a product of an NHS culture of not doing diagnostic tests to save money
A doctor who failed to carry out a simple blood test on an eight-year-old girl who later died told her family: ‘I have let you down. I am sorry.’
Zoe Keeling was taken to hospital with a high temperature, stomach ache and sickness in March last year. She was seen by paediatrician registrar Dr Kerry Orlowski, who said she was confident the girl would recover in a few days and discharged her without doing blood tests. But the little girl had been suffering from a bacterial infection and died hours later.
An inquest into her death at North Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent coroner's court found that the infection may have been picked up had blood tests been carried out.
As the doctor apologised, her family spoke of the ‘emptiness’ they felt after losing their daughter.
Zoe died at her family home in Meir Hay, Stoke-on-Trent, on March 8 last year – a day after being discharged from hospital. She had been suffering from a high temperature, stomach ache and sickness for more than a week, but was told by her GP that it was a viral infection. On March 6, she was rushed to the University Hospital of North Staffordshire, but discharged with the same diagnosis the following morning.
A post-mortem examination revealed Zoe died from bronchial pneumonia, toxic shock due to the infection and chronic bronchitis.
Recording a narrative verdict, coroner Ian Smith said: ‘Zoe died from natural causes, in part because a serious complication of her underlying condition had not been diagnosed.’
The inquest heard Zoe was seen by paediatrician registrar Dr Kerry Orlowski, who helped to bring her temperature down before discharging the eight-year-old with a viral infection. Dr Orlowski said she felt confident the youngster would recover within a few days. She did not feel blood tests were necessary.
She said she was ‘devastated’ when she heard about Zoe's death and thought about it every day. Dr Orlowski said to Zoe's family: ‘I have let you down. I am sorry.’
Consultant paediatrician Dr Martin Samuels and consultant general paediatrician Dr Ian Doughty both spoke in support of Dr Orlowski. Dr Samuels, who conducted an investigation into Zoe's death, said: ‘I would consider her a very high-quality junior doctor.’
Dr Doughty, who is based in Manchester and was involved in an independent investigation into Zoe's death, said he did not think the diagnosis was unreasonable and had no concerns with the action taken that night. But he added: ‘If she was treated earlier, it is likely she would have survived.’
Dr Doughty gave a survival rate of more than 50 per cent if the bacterial infection had been found and treated when Zoe was in hospital.
Coroner Mr Smith said he was sure a full blood test would have revealed an ‘incredibly high white cell count’ which would have led to further investigation and X-rays. He believed that it would have led to treatment with antibiotics. Mr Smith added: ‘I think, from what I have heard, she would have made a recovery, although she would have been a poorly little girl for quite some time.’
Zoe's parents Paul Keeling and Anita Wilkes have already lodged a complaint against the hospital and NHS Stoke-on-Trent. Speaking after the inquest, the family said they were determined to continue with legal action. Miss Wilkes, 40, said: ‘It has been proven now that Zoe could have been saved. I feel empty because there was no reason for me to lose her.’
Killing people is amusing to the Green/Left. Their kinship with Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. is evident
John O'Sullivan
UK cinemas see national release of ‘fun’ new climate activists campaign video showing killing of global warming deniers. Film marked with a parental advisory warning.
Touted in The Guardian newspaper the film labeled, “Not suitable for children” marks a new low in environmentalist cinematic propaganda. Announcing the film’s release the national newspaper boasts, “Our friends at the 10:10 climate change campaign have given us the scoop on this highly explosive short film, written by Britain's top comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis, ahead of its general release.” (hat tip: Barry Woods).
Last Ditch Attempt in Failing Campaign
The offering is being dismissed as a lamentable last-ditch attempt to salvage something of the British government’s futile and soon redundant‘10:10 climate change campaign’ (an initiative to persuade Brits to cut 10% from their carbon emissions in 2010). Official figures show that UK household emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by more than 3% this year as domestic fuel use rose due to colder temperatures.
Guardian readers are invited to guffaw as role models and authority figures depicted in the film press a red button and detonate global warming ‘deniers’ into gory lumps of offal. Packaged in the guise of humor this naked hard sell seems a pitiful attempt at convincing the ‘one or two’ of us who are still left that the sky really is falling despite no rising temperatures globally since 1998.
Gillian Anderson (X-Files) and Radiohead join the motley collection of B listers and has-been former soccer stars. Along with indifferent school kids and non-compliant office workers the naysayers all have their innards exploded. No doubt an enhanced 3-D high-definition sequel will be in the pipeline if the premier of this ‘offaling’ goeswell. For your edification you can watch a nay-saying soccer player and movie star vaporize into gory pulp- all for ignoring their carbon footprint!
Bad Year for Hollywood’s Warmist Cinema
Sadly, 2010 is fast turning into a bad year for tree-hugging film makers. It started with so much promise with the general release of James ‘Chicken’ Cameron’s animated full length feature, ‘Avatar.’ But, Cameron, the new Hollywood darling of the warmist crazies, turned tail and ran after canceling at the very last minute after demanding a climate debate with prominent skeptic, Marc Morano of Climate Depot.
On this evidence, Curtis and Hamilton have so much in common: both appearing to be intellectually bankrupt yet filled by self-loathing as they mournfully concede that public interest in climate-related issues just walked off a cliff.
Setting the bar so low with its most simple (or should that be simplistic?) message, this mercifully short film, also showing on Youtube, is literally tripe and speaks more to the converted than non-believers. But as they say, all publicity is good, right?
When Ed Miliband stood before his party faithful last week as their new leader, grinning nervously in the glare of the spotlight, did his mind flicker back to the men who preceded him?
From its very first leader, Keir Hardie, who started work at the age of just ten in the coalmines of Lanarkshire, to the perma-tanned, globe-trotting, book-flogging Tony Blair, it is safe to say that the self-described people’s party has travelled an awfully long way.
Yet listening to Mr Miliband joking awkwardly about boyhood battles with his defeated brother David, it was hard not to wonder what on earth Labour’s most famous names would have made of the state of their party.
What would self-made men such as Ernest Bevin and Jim Callaghan, who hauled themselves up by their bootstraps from poverty, think of a leadership election that asked members to choose between two privileged, Oxford-educated brothers from North London?
What would war heroes such as Major Clement Attlee and Major Denis Healey make of an election in which neither of the leading candidates had ever held a job outside the political arena?
And what, they might well ask, does it say about the sad state of British politics that our three major parties are led by smooth fortysomethings who might have been cast from exactly the same mould?
Look again at the scenes of delight and despair at last week’s Labour conference, and you see not just an astonishingly incestuous story of fraternal rivalry, but a damning indictment of the collapse of opportunity in modern Britain — and a depressing reminder of the extent to which we are now governed by a tiny, closed and thoroughly narcissistic political class.
And the one characteristic they all share is an overwhelming sense of entitlement that — despite having no knowledge of the real world — they believe gives them a preordained right to rule over us.
But as genuine mobility slips further from reach, there has rarely been a greater gulf between rulers and ruled. Perhaps not since the Victorian era has the distance between the voter and the politician seemed such a chasm.
After all, Ed Miliband makes a very unconvincing spokesman for the ordinary men and women who Labour claims to defend. How many ordinary Labour voters grew up listening to discussions of socialist theory in their Primrose Hill drawing room? How many teenagers today are invited to review films on LBC radio, or work as interns for leading politicians, as ‘Red Ed’ did for Tony Benn?
Depressingly, however, Labour’s new leader is entirely typical of the slick, privileged and strikingly youthful men and women who now dominate our public life.
And for all Mr Miliband’s tiresome emphasis on his youth, British politics could surely do with a few more grey hairs and balding pates. David Cameron and Nick Clegg are both 43, while Ed Miliband is only 40. That makes him less than half the age of the great Liberal statesman William Gladstone, who was 82 when he led his last reforming government in 1892.
Unfashionable as it may be, there is surely much to be said for the wisdom of years. Winston Churchill, after all, was almost 66 when he answered his country’s call in 1940. He had been in Parliament for 40 years, and first entered the Cabinet in 1908 — yet it was precisely because he was so experienced, so seasoned, so battle-hardened, that he was the ideal man to lead our nation through its darkest and finest hours. By contrast, today’s politicians might as well have come straight from nursery school.
Indeed, so smooth and effortless has Mr Miliband’s rise been that when he talked last week about the rise of his ‘new generation’, he seemed to have no inkling of the value of hard-fought experience.For him, the new generation means people like his brother David, who enjoyed the same favoured education — Haverstock School in North London, a politics, philosophy and economics (PPE) degree at Oxford and a spell at a top American university.
Or people like Ed Balls — son of a professor, privately educated at Nottingham High School, PPE at Oxford and a spell at Harvard. Indeed, the closer you look, the harder it becomes to tell the members of our political class apart. Mr Balls’ wife Yvette Cooper read PPE at Oxford, too, before making the obligatory trip to Harvard.
And despite all her talk of equality, Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman is hardly a great advert for social mobility: she went to St Paul’s Girls, the expensive sister school to George Osborne’s alma mater. Amazingly, perhaps, Mr Osborne himself did not read PPE at Oxford; he read history instead. But David Cameron read PPE, although the Prime Minister will surely be too much of a gentleman to mention that while Ed Miliband only got a 2:1, he got a First.
And though Nick Clegg, perhaps showing a flash of Lib Dem eccentricity, read anthropology, not politics or history, his background is so strikingly similar it is no wonder that he and Mr Cameron get along so well. The son of a banker, he went to private school and Cambridge, spent his holidays as a skiing instructor and then, naturally, went off to America to study at the University of Minnesota and work as an intern at a Left-wing magazine.
There is nothing wrong with a private education, an Oxbridge training or a privileged background. Sadly, though, the fact is that at a time when social mobility has stalled, with bright, hard-working children from poor backgrounds struggling to make their way up the ladder, Britain is governed by a tiny political class with almost identical backgrounds, life stories and values.
There are, of course, notable exceptions. For my money, the man Labour should have chosen as their next leader was Alan Johnson, an orphan brought up in a council flat by his sister, who passed his 11-plus, went to grammar school and worked as a shelf-stacker before becoming a postman.
No doubt the former Home Secretary has his weaknesses. But at least people would have believed him when he claimed to understand the plight of ordinary families, and at least he could be said to embody the values of thrift, decency and hard work.
The fact is that at a time when social mobility has stalled, with bright, hard-working children from poor backgrounds struggling to make their way up the ladder, Britain is governed by a tiny political class with almost identical backgrounds, life stories and values
An exception: Brought up on a council estate by a single mother, educated at a local grammar school, Mr Davis became an insurance clerk, joined the Territorial Army to pay for re-taking his exams and ended up working for Tate & Lyle for 17 years. There could hardly be a better example of that dying breed, the working-class Tory MP, or a more compelling story of aspiration, ambition and social mobility — in which, you suspect, his grammar school education played a central part.
There have, of course, always been hacks and apparatchiks. Remembered today as a Tory grandee who served as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Deputy PM, Rab Butler was only 26 when he entered Parliament in 1929, and like so many of his modern-day successors, he never held a proper job outside politics in his life. Significantly, he was denied the leader’s mantle that he felt was his by right.
But 50 or 60 years ago, the stories of Alan Johnson and David Davis would have seemed rather less exceptional than they do today.
Four out of ten Labour MPs came from manual working-class families: Attlee’s deputy PM Herbert Morrison was the son of a Lambeth police constable, while Labour’s deputy leader in the late 1950s, Jim Griffiths, was one of ten children born to a Welsh blacksmith, left school at 13 and took night classes while working as a miner.
And even the Old Etonian Harold Macmillan’s front bench boasted the talents of Reginald Bevins, a former Royal Artillery gunner who was one of five children born into a working-class Liverpool family.
Indeed, the ultimate indictment of today’s political system is that instead of becoming more open, it actually seems to be going backwards, becoming ever more narrow, privileged and exclusive.
Today’s House of Commons is stuffed full of Rab Butlers, thanks largely to the efforts of the party machines to secure safe seats for privileged youths such as the Tory millionaire Zac Goldsmith in Richmond and Labour’s Tristram Hunt, the Left-wing historian, in Stoke. And, sadly, the Alan Johnsons and David Davises are becoming all too rare.
Wasn’t it ever thus? In a word: no. Turn the clock back 60 years, and the political class looked very different. At the head of the Labour Party in 1950 was the modest, unassuming Clement Attlee, who had enjoyed a privileged background and a Haileybury education, but learned the harsh realities of life while working with deprived children in the East End of London.
Like many politicians of his day, Attlee knew the rigours of war at first hand, serving with the South Lancashire Regiment in Gallipoli. Later he fought in Iraq, where he was badly wounded by shrapnel, and ended up in the trenches on the Western Front.
Attlee’s great collaborator Ernest Bevin had a very different life story. Born to a poor family in rural Somerset, he never knew his father, left school at just 11 and had to read the daily paper to his illiterate relatives. And to people who met him as a young man, the idea that this West Country labourer would one day become Foreign Secretary would have seemed laughable.
Yet this was the man who not only reorganised British industry to win World War II, but helped to establish Nato and the United Nations, built the post-war Western alliance against Soviet Communism and pushed for Britain to develop its own nuclear deterrent.
As his friend, opponent and wartime colleague Winston Churchill admiringly put it, Bevin’s ‘manliness, his common sense, his rough simplicity, sturdiness and kind heart, easy geniality and generosity’ were the envy of the Commons. Bevin had learned the value of hard work and sacrifice: when he invoked the British people, he knew what he was talking about.
What Bevin would make of his latter-day successors can only be imagined. Perhaps one day somebody, too, will wax lyrical about Ed Miliband’s manliness, sturdiness and common sense. But I would not stake my house on it.
The crucial point, though, is that Bevin was not alone in bringing a wide experience of life to the political arena. When he looked around the House of Commons in the 1940s and 1950s, he saw young men like Denis Healey who had orchestrated the Allied landings at Anzio, or Ted Heath who had commanded an artillery battery in Northern France.
Both Healey and Heath were from modest backgrounds; both had worked their way up by their own efforts; both, crucially, had benefited from a grammar school education. And within a few years they would be joined by another ambitious young politician who was to leave an even greater mark on our national story.
Margaret Thatcher’s background could hardly have been more different from the gilded intellectual cage inhabited by the Miliband brothers. The daughter of a Methodist grocer in Grantham, Lincolnshire, she won a scholarship to Kesteven and Grantham Girls, a local grammar school, where she first established a reputation for ferocious hard work.
Shamefully, critics often held her background against her: in the 1980s, the philosopher Mary Warnock mocked Mrs Thatcher’s accent, clothes and hair as ‘not exactly vulgar, just low’.
The tragedy is that at a time when ordinary families are feeling the pinch, and when the headlines are full of austerity, pain and sacrifice, our political class has never been more out of touch
But unlike the boarding school-educated Baroness Warnock, Mrs Thatcher had worked for everything she achieved. It was sheer brains and effort, not family connections, that drove her from Grantham to Downing Street.
And her belief in the virtues of hard work, inspired by her simple Methodist faith and grammar school education, lay at the heart of her political outlook. Her one aim, she said, was to ‘change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society, from a give-it-to-me to a do-it-yourself nation’.
Margaret Thatcher, the champion of free markets, and Ernest Bevin, the soul of old-fashioned Labour, might make odd ideological bedfellows. But what they had in common was precisely what is missing from so many of today’s political class — a set of basic values, a love of effort and hard work, and a rounded awareness of life and its perils, inspired by their background, education and experience.
Unlike today’s political leaders, they knew what life was like for millions of ordinary people for whom the gilded splendour of the Palace of Westminster seemed as distant as the craters of the moon.
Like their colleagues Aneurin Bevan, a former Welsh coal miner, or Willie Whitelaw, a tank commander in Normandy, they had learned the lessons of life from bitter experience, not in the seminar rooms of Harvard.
‘I get it,’ Mr Miliband said over and over again last week, just as his spin doctors had instructed him. But you wonder whether, given his cloistered background, his lack of experience and his narrow horizons, he can ever really understand the hopes and fears of millions of people in Warrington, Welshpool and Wolverhampton, people who never had his good fortune or family connections.
The Labour Party may call itself the people’s party. But as the political class celebrate their victory, and the hard realities of life slip ever further from view, you wonder whether its nickname has ever seemed less appropriate.
'Christian' Easter eggs snubbed by stores claims Church Of England
Supermarkets are reluctant to stock specially branded Easter eggs which mention Jesus on the packaging, the Church of England said yesterday. The chocolate eggs are being produced by the Church next Easter after it found that none of the 80million on sale this year had a religious theme.
The packaging around the £3.99 Real Easter Egg carries a panel explaining how Christians believe that Christ was crucified on Good Friday and rose again on Easter Sunday. ‘Many believe that chocolate eggs represent the boulder that sealed his tomb,’ the box tells buyers.
And, amid the more typical art work showing butterflies, bunnies and chickens, the packaging depicts a green hill with three crosses on it.
But in its negotiations with stockists, the Church has found that some large chains are resistant to stocking such overtly religious products for children. A CofE spokesman said: ‘Despite the obvious demand, not all UK supermarkets are planning to stock the egg next year.’
The criticism comes in the wake of the Pope’s state visit to Britain last month in which he attacked ‘aggressive secularism’ and set out his dismay at attempts to stifle the celebration of Christian festivals such as Christmas and Easter ‘in the questionable belief that it might somehow offend those of other religions or none’.
Last night, two of the supermarket chains that have not yet made a decision said they were not opposed in principle. A Waitrose spokesman said: ‘We have asked the supplier for more information on this new product but in principle it is something that we would be really interested in.’ At the Co-op, a spokesman said: ‘No decision about stocking the egg has been made as we have not yet finalised our plans for our Easter range.’
The CofE spokesman said: ‘There are over 80million chocolate Easter eggs sold each year in the UK and, incredibly, not one mentions the Christian understanding of Easter on the box.’
The Church of England believes demand for religious Easter eggs will come from: seven million people who are at least occasional churchgoers; seven million who support the Fairtrade organisation which is supplying the chocolate for its egg; and from 8,000 church schools, which will encourage pupils to buy them.
The eggs, produced by a spin-off company from the CofE’s Manchester diocese, will benefit two charities: Traidcraft Exchange, which helps Third World farmers; and Baby Lifeline, which supplies hospitals with equipment and gives training to medical staff.
British critics of choice in education should go back to school
Writing in the TES, English teacher Julie Greenhough has a short article entitled ‘Why freedom of choice is often no freedom at all’. It is sympathetic towards a view that has recently been expressed by many working in education: that freedom doesn’t work.
Ms Greenhough opens with the classic ‘too much choice’ argument. Apparently, she didn’t buy a cup of tea because she was faced with too much choice. I suppose that is why shops don’t tend to sell thousands of different pots of jam or types tea for that matter. And this, I suppose, is the reason companies advertise and build up branding, as we don’t want to read the label of every product. Instead, we can draw on information from the market and get a free ride from even more advanced consumers. Variable pricing also transmits useful signals of this front, while feedback from friends, family, the media, as well as consumer oriented magazines and websites are part of the process.
Next there is a swipe at those supporting Swedish-style reforms in education. Ms Greenhough thinks the fact that we spend 5.6% of GDP and Sweden spends 7.1% of GDP on education is enough to cast the reforms aside as useless. Of course more money can help (up to a point), but it is far from the be all and end all of a good education system. If it were, Cuba would be twice as advanced in education as even Sweden and that is clearly not the case. In fact, the fact that the Swedish reforms have proved so successful – garnering increasing support from parents, pupils and politicians – suggests that we can see improvements without having to spend more money, a policy that surely deserves support from libertarians and socialists alike.
In the final part of the article, Ms Greenhough suggests that because more pupils have been achieving better grades, we are already seeing educational improvement. I wish this were the case. Recently Mick Waters claimed that the exam system is ‘diseased’. Although Mr Waters misdirects his ire at the wrong target – it is principally the fault of government regulation, not disreputable companies – there can be little doubt that the image he portrays is broadly accurate. Grades are being inflated and devalued as fast as the pound. Radical change is needed if this is to be reversed.
Third of NHS emergency rooms 'facing staffing crisis'
Looks like some long trips for very ill people coming up
More than a third of accident and emergency departments in England are facing a staffing crisis, it has emerged. Some are struggling to keep their departments open due to a dearth of middle grade emergency doctors, who fill the gap between junior doctors and consultants.
Last week managers at Queen Mary's Hospital in Sidcup, Kent, said they would be closing its A&E in November for the winter because of a lack of such doctors. They said they could not risk being unable to cope with the expected surge in winter admissions, which could compromise patient safety.
Now a Freedom of Information request has shown the situation to be more widespread than just pockets of problems. Thirty-four of 99 hospital trusts that responded to an FOI request by Channel 4 News, said they had experienced at least two occasions in the last year when they had been unable to find a middle grade doctor to work on call, on-site, overnight.
Casualty doctors say that changes to immigration rules brought in by the last government have made it much more difficult for medics from countries like India and Pakistan to work in Britain.
Changes to GPs' contracts, which have allowed them to pay others to provide out-of-hours cover rather than do it themselves, have also resulted in more young doctors opting for a career in general practice, at the expense of other avenues like emergency medicine. One emergency doctor told the channel: "Why do this when you can go and be a GP, earn lots of money and not have to work anti-social hours?"
Of the 34 trusts who admitted to staffing problems, half said they were advertising all the time to recruit for empty posts. The lack of middle grades has caused many trusts to make greater demands of junior doctors and consultants to ensure adequate staffing levels.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "The number of doctors choosing to specialise in A&E is rising. We are working closely with the UK Border Agency on their visa procedures that affect NHS staff recruited from overseas."
No wonder so many parents are removing boys from the state system and placing them in single-sex prep schools, writes Rowan Pelling
When I attended a village primary school in Kent, the majority of the clever-clogs were boys. They thrived on competition, which was encouraged in and out of the classroom with a house points and merit badge system. Discipline was strict and the inspiring headmaster, whose limp was rumoured to be a war wound, took clever children into his study for extra coaching.
Many of the brighter boys, my older brother included, won 11-plus places at the nearby grammar. A few years after I left, the headmaster retired and a female head teacher was appointed, who brought a raft of trendy, feminised teaching practices with her. One of the school's best teachers promptly resigned, and within four years the school's reputation for academic excellence had gone, never to be recovered.
Most of those teaching practices have become the default setting of state education. While I am thankful for the equal opportunities afforded to girls and the disappearance of the cane, there is now widespread acknowledgment that most of these changes have been disastrous – particularly for boys. So much so, that BBC2's Gareth Malone's Extraordinary School for Boys has proved gripping prime-time viewing. Every parent of boys I know applauded the zippy choirmaster's attempts to re-engage a class of 39 wayward young males with the pleasures of learning. In just eight weeks, the boys' reading ages had improved by five months and a couple of notable under-achievers saw their results rocket.
None of Gareth's conclusions was revolutionary – boys need discipline and to be challenged, thrilled and inspired, or their concentration quickly lapses – but the fact remains that these elements are routinely lacking from Britain's junior classrooms, as are the necessary male role models.
No wonder so many parents are removing boys from the state system and placing them in single-sex prep schools. According to the Independent Association of Prep Schools, 61 per cent of their 600 member schools have seen a rise in numbers, despite the biting recession. David Hanson, the chief executive of the association, cited the fact that prep schools turn out "fully rounded little boys" who aren't pressurised to play the fool.
Many parents will recognise that portrait. A good friend of mine used the money previously earmarked for moving from their tiny village semi to upgrade her precociously clever seven-year-old son's education instead. She removed him from the local primary, where he was "profoundly bored and playing up" to a private prep school where, within a year, he walked off with a shelf of prizes.
My local primary is wonderful in most aspects, but I can't help lamenting the fact that there's only one full-time male teacher in a school of around 400 pupils. It's not that the women teachers aren't good, but I know my son responds to men on a more intuitive level.
Take the time I was asked to rein him in, because he had been frightening other children by talking about demons and zombies. I couldn't help thinking that a male teacher would have shared my belief that this was entirely appropriate subject matter for a small boy with a lively imagination.
Meanwhile, competition is verboten, so when I tried to explain to him last week that he would perform poorly in his spelling test if he didn't practise, he looked at me as if I was barmy and said, "There are no marks – everyone does well, Mummy." A number of my son's brightest friends are already lagging behind the girls in general literacy and I only improved his reading by taking him off the dull school learn-to-read texts and giving him Tintin and Roald Dahl.
Indeed, the best way to galvinise boys is often to take them off an easy task and give then something far harder. Prep schools recognise this truth – the big question is whether state schools can gain the will, imagination and freedom to emulate them.
Eating meat is good for the planet (and that's according to a militant vegan)
Lunch with Simon Fairlie is a carnivore’s nightmare. Around the communal table at Monkton Wyld Court — the ‘sustainable lifestyle community’ in the Dorset hills where Fairlie lives — our plates are filled with corn fritters and sprouting quinoa seed salad.
But although the diet is strictly vegetarian, the talk is all about beef. That’s because Fairlie — just in from milking his two cows, and every inch the hippie farmer with his beard and tatty embroidered waistcoat — is no evangelical vegetarian.
Rather, this former co-editor of The Ecologist is a rebel from within the environmental movement who says that the eco-establishment has got it badly wrong over animals: that farming them and eating meat is OK. In fact, he claims, moderate carnivores may be better for the planet than vegans.
He despises the urban Greens and their ignorance about the countryside
As a keeper of livestock, Fairlie was also struck by the endlessly repeated ‘facts’ used by vegetarians and environmental campaigners to prove the inefficiency of raising animals as human food. Chief among those is the notorious 10:1 ‘conversion rate’, which appears everywhere from scientific papers to school textbooks. This states that to produce 1kg of beef, you need to feed a cow 10kg of grain. If humans ate grain, then, instead of beef, there would be far more food to go around.
‘This figure has its origins in the 18th century,’ contends Fairlie, adding that it was publicised most dramatically in an essay by the poet Shelley, who in 1813 became one of the world’s first militant vegetarians. George Bernard Shaw and Paul McCartney were his heirs, and with them rose an ‘urban green agenda’ that Fairlie despises, because of its ignorance about the countryside. ‘Most rural Greens eat meat,’ he says.
And that 10:1 ‘conversion rate’ is an absurd exaggeration, Fairlie’s research shows. It would be true if you fed nothing but grain to cows — but no one does that.
Even in the mega-farms where cheap beef is produced in the U.S. — which do use huge amounts of grain to fatten animals — the ratio is perhaps 7:1.
On a traditional small farm, very little vegetable matter fit for human consumption is used for beef production and the real conversion ratio is perhaps 1.4 to 1 — for every 1.4kg of vegetable humans could have eaten, you can produce 1kg of beef.
‘And that’s a pretty good exchange, if you’re getting something different and nice to eat,’ says Fairlie. There are other benefits, too. A dairy herd is a highly efficient way of turning something humans can’t eat — grass — into things they can, such as milk, butter and cheese. What’s more, cows recycle nutrients back into the land as manure, and their grazing encourages grass to grow.
One of the great disasters of recent years, in Fairlie’s eyes, is the ban on feeding swill — waste food from restaurants and factories — to farm animals following the foot and mouth epidemic of 2001. Before that, many pigs on small farms happily ate kitchen waste, costing the planet and the farmer very little.
Now two-thirds of Britain’s pig feed comes from meal, which is expensive, or grain that humans might have eaten — much of it imported soya. Meanwhile, the 20 million tonnes of food we throw away each year is burnt or buried.
Fairlie thinks there is a worrying ideological agenda behind the dodgy statistics of the anti-meat lobby.
In his book, he quotes prominent vegetarian philosophers and campaigners in organisations like PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) who would like to do away with all animal-based food, instead producing genetically-engineered ‘cultured muscle tissue’ for humans in factories. He quotes one of these luminaries boasting that he insists on feeding his dogs and cats on soya protein, rather than meat.
So how does the ‘Fairlie diet’ work? He tells me he eats meat perhaps twice a week — the last was a steak and kidney pie at a friend’s birthday. ‘We should eat more of the animal — like the offal — and learn to cook with smaller amounts of it.’
That would make our diet more like that of our ancestors. They enjoyed animals like pigs and chickens which are cheap to keep, because they consume waste and surplus grain.
British supermarket bosses order boy aged TWO to take down hood 'for security reasons'
The Brits just love exercising bureaucratic power to annoy, hamper or hurt others
The parents of a two-year-old boy have accused their local Co-op store of a 'total lack of common sense and flexibility' after being asked by a member of staff to take their son's anorak hood down inside the shop. Corey Read's family were faced with the bizarre security demand - said to be a policy for all Co-op customers - when they visited the store in Norwich.
The boy's grandfather Alan Barker, 41, said today: 'I'm so angry at the Co-op's attitude, especially as the weather is getting worse and Corey has to stay warm to avoid getting ear infections.'
His mother Stacie Read, 23, explained they had gone to the Co-op along with her five-month-old baby son Finley Read, husband Shane Read, 22, and uncle Chris Read, 21.
Mrs Read, who lives nearby said: 'We'd just gone into the shop to get a few things for our Sunday roast. 'Corey had been complaining of earache, so he had the hood of his coat up. 'We were just near the door when the manager said, 'Do you mind pulling his hood down? 'He told us, 'It's just that eight-year-olds will moan that he's allowed his hood up but they are not.' 'It was especially cold that day and the doors are always open in the shop.'
She added: 'I didn't want Corey getting cold as he is prone to ear infections.
'We went into Tesco next door straight afterwards and the security guard there didn't say a thing about Corey's hood.' It is understood that because the incident happened on a Sunday the store's regular manager was not on duty.
Hoods, hats and other types of headgear are banned by many shops due to fears over crime and anti-social behaviour as it makes it harder to identify offenders using CCTV cameras.
Mrs Read said her husband Shane, a factory worker, was furious but she urged him not to become involved in a row over the issue. Later that day Corey's grandfather, Mr Barker, phoned the store to complain and spoke to the duty manager.
Mr Barker, of Bowthorpe, Norwich, said: 'He told me, We have to do this'. 'He said, We have 90-year-olds who come in and we have to tell them the same thing. 'This is a bad area and we have a lot of stealing.
'Corey is quite a skinny little chap and feels the cold,' Mr Barker said. 'He's just two years old and he's hardly going to rob the store.' He added: 'We go in all the local shops and that's the first time that something like this has ever happened to us.'
The company has now launched an urgent investigation into the incident. Miriam Harrup, spokeswoman for East of England Co-op, said today: 'We are investigating what happened.' She went on to explain that the company had a general policy of asking customers to remove helmets and hoods for security reasons but that a common-sense approach was usually taken.
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Some TERMINOLOGY for non-British readers: The British "A Level" exam is roughly equivalent to a U.S. High School diploma. Rather confusingly, you can get As, Bs or Cs in your "A Level" results. Entrance to the better universities normally requires several As in your "A Levels".
Again for American readers: A "pensioner" is a retired person living on Social Security
Consensus. Margaret Thatcher in a 1981 speech: "For me, pragmatism is not enough. Nor is that fashionable word "consensus."... To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"?
For my sins I have always loved G.B. Shaw's witty comment: "No Englishman can open his mouth without causing another Englishman to despise him". But Shaw was Irish, of course.
Britain has enormous claims to fame -- most of which the Labour goverment has been doing its best to destroy. But one glory no-one can destroy is British humour. And if you don't "get" British humour, your life is a dreary desert indeed. A superb sample here
Here is a link to my favourite British political speech since WWII. It is by Nigel Farage, the Leader of the UK Independence Party. He is referring to the Fascistic decision by the EU parliament to act as if their huge new "constitution" had been approved by the voters when in fact majorities in France, Ireland and Nederland (Holland) have rejected it at the ballot box. He points out that abuse is all they have to offer when he points out the impropriety of their actions.
Farage's expression, "A complete shower" is British slang meaning a group of completely incompetent and useless failures. It originated in the British armed forces where its unabbreviated version was "A complete shower of sh*t".
Britain appears to be the first country where anti-patriotism gained strong hold. Even Friedich Engels (the co-worker with Karl Marx who died in 1895) was a furious German patriot. Much of the British elite were anti-patriotic from the early 20th century onwards, however. The "Cambridge spies" (from one of Britain's two most prestigious universities) are a good example of that. Although Cambridge appears to have been the chief nest of spies-to-be in Britain of the 30s, however, Oxford was also very Leftist. In 1933 (9th Feb.) the Oxford Union debated the motion: "This House will in no circumstances fight for King and Country". The motion was overwhelmingly carried (275 to 153).
I have an abiding fascination with the Church of England. It is the sort of fascination one might have for a once-distinguished elderly relative who has gone bad and become a slave to the bottle. But nothing I can say about the C of E (which these days seems to stand for The Church of the Environment) could surpass what the whole of English literature says of it -- which ranges from seeing it as a collection of nincompoops and incompetents to seeing it as comprised of evil hypocrites. Yet its 39 "Articles of Religion" of 1562 are an abiding and eloquent statement of Protestant faith. But I guess that 1562 is a long time ago.
Links about antisemitism in 21st century Britain here and here and here and here and here
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could well have been thinking of modern Britain when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.
I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.
I imagine that the RD are still sending mailouts to my 1950s address
The kneejerk response of the Green/Left to people who challenge them is to say that the challenger is in the pay of "Big Oil", "Big Business", "Big Pharma", "Exxon-Mobil", "The Pioneer Fund" or some other entity that they see, in their childish way, as a boogeyman. So I think it might be useful for me to point out that I have NEVER received one cent from anybody by way of support for what I write. As a retired person, I live entirely on my own investments. I do not work for anybody and I am not beholden to anybody. And I have NO investments in oil companies, mining companies or "Big Pharma"
UPDATE: Despite my (statistical) aversion to mining stocks, I have recently bought a few shares in BHP -- the world's biggest miner, I gather. I run the grave risk of becoming a speaker of famous last words for saying this but I suspect that BHP is now so big as to be largely immune from the risks that plague most mining companies. I also know of no issue affecting BHP where my writings would have any relevance. The Left seem to have a visceral hatred of miners. I have never quite figured out why.
I am an army man. Although my service in the Australian army was chiefly noted for its un-notability, I DID join voluntarily in the Vietnam era, I DID reach the rank of Sergeant, and I DID volunteer for a posting in Vietnam. So I think I may be forgiven for saying something that most army men think but which most don't say because they think it is too obvious: The profession of arms is the noblest profession of all because it is the only profession where you offer to lay down your life in performing your duties. Our men fought so that people could say and think what they like but I myself always treat military men with great respect -- respect which in my view is simply their due.
Although I have been an atheist for all my adult life, I have no hesitation in saying that the single book which has influenced me most is the New Testament. And my Scripture blog will show that I know whereof I speak.
Many people hunger and thirst after righteousness. Some find it in the hatreds of the Left. Others find it in the love of Christ. I don't hunger and thirst after righteousness at all. I hunger and thirst after truth. How old-fashioned can you get?
My academic background
My full name is Dr. John Joseph RAY. I am a former university teacher aged 65 at the time of writing in 2009. I was born of Australian pioneer stock in 1943 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland in Australia. I trace my ancestry wholly to the British Isles. After an early education at Innisfail State Rural School and Cairns State High School, I taught myself for matriculation. I took my B.A. in Psychology from the University of Queensland in Brisbane. I then moved to Sydney (in New South Wales, Australia) and took my M.A. in psychology from the University of Sydney in 1969 and my Ph.D. from the School of Behavioural Sciences at Macquarie University in 1974. I first tutored in psychology at Macquarie University and then taught sociology at the University of NSW. My doctorate is in psychology but I taught mainly sociology in my 14 years as a university teacher. In High Schools I taught economics. I have taught in both traditional and "progressive" (low discipline) High Schools. Fuller biographical notes here
