The primary site for this blog mirror is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE (and mirrored here). The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Immigration Watch, Food & Health Skeptic, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Dissecting Leftism, Recipes, Tongue Tied and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site
****************************************************************************************



30 April, 2010

NHS red tape is the problem

It’s election time, apparently, and our glorious political classes are marching forward on the massed ranks of the electorate with banners that claim that their party, only their party, will save the NHS. Politicians clamour to praise its world-class status and laud the dedication of nurses and the skill of its doctors. And all parties are united in the view that, despite the need for austerity measures, frontline staff and services will not be cut. So where are the savings planned? Watch the hand and not the mouth.

When I started in medicine, the hospital was run by about three people. Things were so much more simple when doctors and nurses treated patients, doing their best without the guidance of guidelines and targets, doing their best ... yes ... to make the patients better. How did we manage without forms to fill and waiting times compliance? Quite well actually. The medical director ran the medical side of things while matron and the accountant handled the rest. It wasn’t much of a business then: it didn’t have to be, because there was no internal market to manage.

The internal market — Mrs Thatcher’s plan to introduce efficiency by having hospital compete against hospital to provide patient treatment — has wreaked havoc. It has spawned a nation of administrators, here today and gone to another post tomorrow — while doing nothing to bring costs under control.

The internal market’s billing system is not only costly and bureaucratic, the theory that underpins it is absurd. Why should a bill for the treatment of a patient go out to Oldham or Oxford, when it is not Oldham or Oxford that pays the bill — there is only one person that picks up the tab: the taxpayer, you and me.

And there are big problems with the billing process. For example, if a patient is seen in an outpatient clinic then there is a charge made by the hospital for his or her first attendance — but follow-up appointments are not charged. And if many treatments are given in a hospital to a patient, only the most expensive of the treatment episodes is charged.

There are savings to be made. It is alleged that there are just 75,000 administrators at work in the NHS but this figure is laughably mythological. Doctors and nurses know that there are many more than this. They look around and see the numbers increasing. One report by the Centre for Policy Studies published in 2003 indicated that there were 250,000 administrative staff employed in the NHS: at least one administrator for every nurse. In recent times the rate of increase of admin staff within the NHS has exceeded that of nursing staff.

There is a general feeling in the NHS of disempowerment of the professionals. People can’t face up to the incredible struggle, the disapproval that faces any of them if they have the temerity to suggest that things should be run differently.

The principle of care for all from cradle to grave is worthy and wonderful. But the current reality is a cradle rocked by accountants who are incapable of even counting the number of times that they have rocked it. The reality is gravediggers working with a cost improvement shovel made of rust.

Over the years politicians have made dramatic changes to the way that the NHS has been run. Recent changes have caused fragmentation and not led to any cost saving. Moving patients from one place to another does not save the nation’s money, though it might save a local hospital some dosh. So the internal market has failed because it does not consider the health of the nation as a whole, merely the finances of a single hospital department, a local hospital or GP practice.

So what should we do? Let us go back to the old discipline of the NHS. Let the professionals manage medicine, empower the professionals, the doctors and nurses and shove the internal market in the bin and screw down the lid. At this election time please let us hear from all political parties that they will ditch this absurd love-affair with the internal market. Instead let them help the NHS do what it does best — treat patients, and do so efficiently and economically without the crucifying expense and ridiculous parody of competition.

SOURCE



Another gross failure by British Social workers

They just don't want to know about the underclass. Persecuting minor infractions by the middle class is what gets them off

Social services repeatedly missed opportunities to protect a 14-year-old girl from her parents despite concerns about the family and reports of physical abuse.

The parents, who were jailed yesterday, sexually abused the girl and traded indecent images of her with an American paedophile, Plymouth Crown Court was told.

The teenager was “brainwashed” into believing that the abuse was her own fault. She refused to co-operate with the police investigation or give a statement and tried to claim that she took the indecent images herself, the court was told.

The parents, who cannot be identified to protect the girl, had been known to social services for at least three years before her birth and her older brother had been taken into care and adopted. Between her birth and 2002 the children’s department was called in seven times because of repeated complaints of abuse.

When she was seven she was taken into foster care for a short time, during which her carers expressed concern that she was “over-sexualised”. Despite this she was returned to her parents by social workers.

The court was read a comment by Judge Miranda Robertshaw, who is hearing care proceedings in the Family Court. She said: “The assessment of the local authorities is almost incomprehensible given the previous family history and the vulnerability of such a child.”

The girl was taken out of school at the age of 13 when her parents claimed she was being taught at home, but no checks were made by the authorities. A psychiatric report said the girl developed “accommodation syndrome” and became completely compliant to her father’s wishes.

The father, aged 43, admitted sexual activity with a child, four offences of causing a child to engage in sexual activity, and making and distributing indecent images. He was jailed for ten years.

Her mother, 39, admitted two counts of inciting a child to engage in sex acts, child cruelty, and making an indecent image. She was jailed for three years.

Bronwen Lacey, director of services for children at Plymouth City Council, said: “The last contact with the then social services department was in 2002. [Since then] Plymouth has made significant improvements in social care and safeguarding arrangements.” [Ho, ho!]

SOURCE



British Teacher who attacked pupil with dumbbell should never have been put on trial, says judge

A teacher who bludgeoned a disruptive pupil with a dumbbell walked free yesterday when a 'common sense' jury acquitted him in minutes. Peter Harvey was cleared of trying to kill a 14-year-old boy who told him to '**** off'.

His trial heard how he was targeted by teenagers who knew he had been off work with depression and stress.

The 'fundamentally decent' man snapped when the science class set out to upset him, with a girl - described as the pupils' ringleader - using a camcorder to film the incident so she could distribute it round the school.

Mr Harvey dragged the boy - a persistent troublemaker - into a cupboard and hit him about the head with a 3kg dumbbell shouting 'die, die, die'. The attack fractured the teenager's skull.

But yesterday a jury swiftly acquitted him of attempted murder and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Judge Michael Stokes QC told the court 'common sense had prevailed'.

Mr Harvey, 50, had already admitted the lesser count of grievous bodily harm but the judge said he would not be sent to prison.

It was revealed that the judge had already said that the trial should never have been brought because of the teacher's 'previous good character' and his state of mind when he attacked the boy.

Astonishingly, the father-of-two had spent eight months on remand before the trial - despite his own mental state, his wife suffering severe depression and their daughter having Asperger's syndrome.

The judge told him at Nottingham Crown Court: 'You have already effectively served a sentence that is more than the appropriate sentence. 'I am already looking to a community order with a view to assisting you, in view of your recent problems.'

At a press conference called by his union, the teacher sat in silence alongside his wife Samantha, 44, as his solicitor Paula Porter read a statement on his behalf, saying the verdict was not 'received with any sense of joy or triumph'.

Mr Harvey said in the statement: 'I acknowledge, as I have from the outset, that my actions have caused damage and pain. For that reason, I again extend my deepest and sincere apologies and regret for that.'

The trial had heard how the veteran science master had gone from a 'great teacher' admired by all at All Saints' Roman Catholic School in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, into someone who was snappy and irritable when he returned to work after having four months off with stress and depression.

A group of disruptive pupils set out to 'wind up' the teacher and used mobile phones to circulate evidence of their misbehaviour. The court heard pupils had noticed Harvey muttering to himself when he became stressed in the three months since he returned to work.

Chris Keates, general secretary of teachers' union NASUWT, said Mr Harvey had been the victim of an 'explosive combination' of a teacher in fragile health and a group of pupils hell-bent on exploiting it - and that questions had to be asked about how
he had been allowed to come back to work by his employers.

'Any teacher who has had to deal with challenging and disruptive pupils will recognise that given the combination of factors that applied in this case how such a situation can easily spiral out of control,' she said.

More here



Nails in the Global Warming Coffin

Comment from Professor Philip Stott in Britain

I have to confess that I have become increasingly wearied and bored by the fatuous lack of reality exhibited on this topic by many UK politicians. It is so glaringly obvious that, since the debacle in Copenhagen, ‘global warming’ is dying as a major political trope that I find it less and less exercising as an issue. Indeed, I do not want to waste too much energy in flogging a fundamentally dead corpse.

This last week, however, the nails in the global warming coffin have been driven in so thick and so fast that I thought it might be worth bringing attention once again to what is happening around the world - “You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Global Warming is as dead as a door-nail,” although I suspect that the Global Warming Ghost will hang around moaning and wailing for quite a while yet.

Germany Gets Cold Feet

First, in that paragon of so-called Green virtues, Germany, Spiegel Online reports that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, ‘Abandons Aim of Binding Climate Agreement’:

“Frustrated by the climate change conference in December, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quietly moving away from her goal of a binding agreement on limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius. She has also sent out signals at the EU level that she no longer supports the idea of Europe going it alone.”

Spiegel goes on to comment: “... now it’s time for realpolitik. Merkel and Röttgen [have] had to admit that countries like China and India will not submit to a mandatory target that others have contrived.” Precisely so.

The Emissions Billycan Waltzes Off Indefinitely

Meanwhile, ‘Down Under’, The Sydney Morning Herald reports: ‘Emissions put on back burner’:

“A Senate vote on the trading scheme legislation, which was due next month, has now been dropped by the government for the May and June sittings of Parliament. A government source said yesterday the fate of the Senate vote on the legislation beyond June was unclear.

The source said the decision to park the legislation indefinitely reflected the political reality that the opposition, under leader Tony Abbott, and the Greens had vowed to reject the scheme in the Senate.

Unless the Coalition or the Greens change their positions the government will now have to wait until July 1 next year for the Senate to change over after this year's federal election to negotiate with a potentially less hostile Parliament - unless a double-dissolution election is called.

The government will now concentrate on passing other matters in the Senate including its national health reform package and the national broadband network. ‘Obviously there are a lot of pressures in the Senate, so the government has to prioritise the reforms that are most likely to be passed,’ the source said.”

Indeed. Most wise. “Good On Yer, Mate!”

Different Priorities In US Too

Then, in the US, as The New York Times reports:

“The Senate climate bill sits on the brink of collapse today after the lead Republican ally threatened to abandon negotiations because of a White House push to simultaneously overhaul the nation's immigration policies.”

Moreover, President Obama has far more pressing worries and priorities as ‘US Republicans block debate of finance rules reform’ - Mr Obama has made reining in Wall Street a cornerstone of his Presidency.

Quite so.

Finally, Elusive Pay-Offs And Not Such A Green-Blue

Further, somewhat unsurprisingly given all of the above, the monies so happily and so readily promised to help developing nations to fight ‘global warming’ are proving remarkably elusive. Only the most politically- and economically-naive of souls could have expected otherwise.

Lastly, even in our ever-Utopian UK, ‘global warming’ has, thank goodness, hardly featured in the election to date, being confined to brief comments hidden in the deepest inner recesses of a few newspapers, although it is worth stating that the energy policies of the newly-resurgent Liberal Democrats would probably do for Britain as a serious economic power.

By contrast, as The Times points out this morning about the Conservatives:

“Despite Mr Cameron’s slogan of ‘vote blue go green’, a recent survey found that only 22 per cent of Conservative candidates in winnable seats strongly supported Britain’s target of generating 15 per cent of Britain’s energy from renewable sources by 2020.

David Davis, the former Shadow Home Secretary, recently warned that the policy of tough targets to cut carbon emissions, supported by Mr Cameron, was ‘destined to collapse’.”

Just so.

Indeed, the complete collapse of the Great Global Warming Grand Narrative continues apace.

It will surely be fascinating to observe precisely the moment when UK politicians begin to stop mouthing pious platitudes about the political significance of ‘global warming’.

SOURCE





29 April, 2010

Publicity works again: Mother denied cancer drug wins right to get it on NHS

Pity on you if you are one of the 20,000 who can't get publicity for their case, though

A mother who had been denied the only cancer drug that could prolong her life has won the right to have the treatment funded by the NHS. Former teacher Nikki Phelps suffers from glandular cancer and has already spent £6,000 of her life savings on the drug Sutent.

She was even forced to put her house on the market after her primary care trust refused to pay for the £100-a-day drug, which her consultant said was the only treatment that could help her.

But NHS officials have performed a Uturn, with an appeals panel reversing the decision not to fund the treatment. The drug had previously been withheld because NHS rationing body NICE has not specifically approved Sutent for her form of cancer.

Mrs Phelps, 37, became the human face of a political battle over the NHS days after the election was called, with the Tories using her case to highlight their pledge to pay for any cancer drug a specialist recommends.

Her husband Bill said he got news of the NHS U-turn from the director of West Kent Primary Care Trust yesterday afternoon.

The trust will also backdate its decision to February 1 - repaying £9,150 the couple had spent. Mr Phelps, 45, said: 'I'm delighted and incredibly grateful to the Daily Mail for highlighting Nikki's case, but it seems ridiculous that we had to go to such lengths and cause such a fuss in the first place.

'We are also very grateful to Nikki's consultant who wrote to the trust and basically scolded them like naughty schoolboys over their original decision. No one in their right minds should be going against an oncologist who has been dealing directly with a patient.'

Mr Phelps said they were considering using money already raised by charitable neighbours and friends to set up a foundation to help those in a similar situation.

Last night Mrs Phelps was in hospital - where she has been for the past ten days - having fluid removed from her lungs and stomach. After a recent operation, her spirits were said to have been ' incredibly lifted' by the news she will get the drug she needs. In the meantime, the Phelps will not be forced to sell their home in the Kent hamlet of Luddesdown, near Gravesend.

The couple run a cattery as their main form of income and are parents to two-year- old twins Jack and Harry.

Mrs Phelps's case embodied one of Labour's broken promises, after the party pledged to give those suffering from rare forms of cancer easier access to life-extending drugs. But NICE has since refused to approve ten such drugs and health experts believe the rulings may cut short up to 20,000 lives. It also emerged that another NHS trust sold its Sutent abroad at a profit and other trusts were also selling their drugs overseas .

The Tories have pledged £ 200million to ensure no one is denied a drug their consultant believes they should have.

Mrs Phelps said earlier this month: 'I can't understand what the NHS is doing - where is the logic in investing in my treatment and then pulling the plug on me like this?

'My consultant is an expert in the field, and he knows what's best for me. Yet someone else is making a decision about what drugs I can and cannot take.' Mrs Phelps was diagnosed with the cancer, which causes tumours in the glands, 10 years ago before being given the all-clear in 2002.

However the disease returned and she had an 11lb tumour removed in January last year.

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley said: 'I am delighted to hear that Nikki Phelps has received the drugs she needs, and I wish her well. But she shouldn't have had to go through so much stress and anxiety to get it.'

SOURCE



Hospitals face flood of claims after daughter of suicide patient wins £10,000 over NHS breaching mother's 'right to life'

The Health Service faces a flood of potential lawsuits under the Human Rights Act after a secure mental hospital was ruled liable for one of its suicidal patients killing herself. Carol Savage, 50, jumped under a train four years ago.

Her daughter Anna, 23, has won a £10,000 payout and the NHS also faces a bill for hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs.

The High Court ruled that Mrs Savage’s ‘right to life’ had been breached by Runwell Hospital, in Essex.

It was the first such case to come before an English court and could pave the way for hundreds of similar claims. The ruling places a greater obligation on NHS Trusts to safeguard the lives of vulnerable patients. More than 1,800 such patients committed suicide between 1997 and 2006.

Mr Justice Mackay awarded Miss Savage £10,000 in ‘just satisfaction’ against the South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

Mrs Savage of Rayleigh, Essex, had a history of running away from the hospital. The judge said he had ‘no doubt she presented a real and immediate risk’ of absconding from the ward and of committing suicide in the days before her death on July 5, 2004.

She had had a paranoid mental illness for some time, had made several attempts to run away and had spoken of suicide.

An inquest in 2005 heard that staff at Runwell considered Mrs Savage at ‘low risk’ of absconding – even though she had once been found wandering in traffic on the A130 trying to kill herself.

He rejected the Trust’s plea it did ‘all it reasonably could’ to protect Mrs Savage from herself. He added: ‘All that was required to give her a …substantial chance of survival was the imposition of a raised level of observations.’

The Association of NHS Trusts said: ‘Every hospital trust is now going to have to look very carefully at its care of mentally disturbed patients.’

SOURCE



British Labour Party meltdown

Leftist hypocrisy exposed

GORDON Brown prostrated himself as a "penitent sinner" yesterday after a brush with a voter triggered a calamitous chain of events that threatened to derail Labour on the eve of tonight's pivotal TV debate.

The Prime Minister spent an unscheduled 45 minutes inside the terraced house of Gillian Duffy apologising to the Labour-supporting widow for insulting her behind her back.

His muttered description of her as a "bigoted woman", picked up by a microphone as he drove off from their combative but apparently friendly encounter, plunged Labour's high command into its most serious crisis of the campaign.

Instead of pressing the party's record on the economy before tonight's final trial by television, the election machine was reduced to desperate firefighting as Lord Mandelson led a series of cabinet ministers on to the airwaves.

The Business Secretary said that Mr Brown had been wrong to criticise the pensioner, whose mistake, on her way to buy a loaf of bread, had been to buttonhole the Prime Minister over the deficit, immigration and student debts.

A mortified Mr Brown issued six apologies over the next six hours, including one by e-mail to Labour supporters for letting them down. Despite saying sorry to Mrs Duffy over the telephone, he ignored aides and insisted on driving back to Rochdale from Manchester, abandoning his preparation for tonight's third and final leaders' debate, to atone in person for his blunder.

He emerged from her house smiling fixedly, saying that he had misunderstood her earlier words. But a more telling image showed him in a Manchester radio studio earlier, head in hands, the full horror of the episode dawning as he listened to a tape of his remarks.

The ghastly unfolding seemed unlikely when the pair parted on apparently good terms after a five-minute conversation in the street. Mr Brown told Mrs Duffy that it had been "very good" to meet her and she told journalists that she had found him "nice" and that he had won her vote.

But within seconds Mr Brown could be heard - courtesy of a Sky News microphone that he had worn for his walkabout - declaring their meeting a "disaster", blaming aides for putting him in such a position, and describing Mrs Duffy as "a sort of bigoted woman". He concluded, days into a new campaigning style in which he meets more real people: "It's just ridiculous."

His reaction was apparently sparked by a comment on immigrants, when she said: "All these Eastern Europeans what are coming in, where are they flocking from?"

SOURCE



Quality of British school books hit by changes

Constant tweaking of math syllabus mean textbooks are 'less coherent' than in Asia. Far be it from me to defend ANYTHING about British government schools but IQ tests do show greater mathematical aptitude among East Asians so not all the fault for British pupils falling behind can be placed at the door of their schools. The Asian advantage is inborn.

Pupils of East Asian origin do extraordinarily well in Australian schools too. Some Asian first graders have more literacy in English than do some American High School graduates. That is a bold statement to make but I have seen it with my own eyes

Constant changes to the national curriculum have left school textbooks floundering in their wake, according to a major international study of maths performance published today.

The authors of the report single out a deterioration in the quality of textbooks as the key factor for England lagging behind the top performers in international league tables.

"Countries that perform consistently well in maths use carefully constructed textbooks as the primary means of teaching," says the study by academics at King's College London.

"By comparison, use of textbooks in English schools is relatively low and English textbooks use routine examples and are less mathematically coherent than those in other countries. Pupils in high-performing countries (such as China, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore) are also more likely to use textbooks at home than their English counterparts."

The authors, Professor Mike Askew and Dr Jeremy Hogden, argue: "Over the past 20 years the educational system in England has been subject to frequent reform and review. One consequence of this has been to limit the time available for the development and trialling of textbooks with publishers competing to produce textbooks quickly. This has led to a reduction in the quality of textbooks." In a separate study of books used in English, French and German schools, the English textbooks were found to be "less coherent".

The report also comes to the conclusion that children do not have to enjoy maths to do well at it."There is no link between achievement and enjoyment in maths education," it says. "High-performing countries are as concerned over pupils' dislike of mathematics as we are in England." One factor in the success of eastern countries could be the fact that in China, for instance, parents have to buy their children's textbooks. "That may influence expectations," the report's authors argue. "Colleagues in China have expressed surprise that in England textbooks are provided by the state and the lack of expectation that pupils would do extra work from textbooks at home."

One of the most respected international studies into maths standards, known as Timms, places England seventh in the world in the tests for 14-year-olds. In the other respected international maths standards study, Pisa, 18 countries outperformed England.

It explains the Asian pupils' success in maths by concluding: "Pupils in these countries may be less interested in the mathematics itself and more in the status afforded by exam success. Success within such exam-oriented systems requires effort and any pleasure is as a result of the success attained rather than derived through the processes of learning per se."

SOURCE



British grade inflation as Cambridge rejects record 5,800 straight-A pupils

Fears over A-level grade inflation were revived last night after Cambridge revealed it rejected a record 5,817 straight-A applicants last year. The university said the figure was up 323 from 5,494 in the previous year.

The figures highlight the difficulties faced by admissions tutors in sorting between well-qualified applicants. Cambridge is introducing an A* grade to conditional offers this year but most other universities will shun the new grade for the first years of its operation.

Pupils from independent and grammar schools were significantly more likely to be accepted by the elite university last year, despite a multi-million pound drive to recruit talented comprehensive pupils.

Cambridge said that in 2008, state school pupils had claimed their biggest share of places since 1981 - a sign their efforts were paying off. But 2009 figures show that state school numbers slipped back, falling 5 per cent to 1,675.

At the same time, the numbers admitted from private schools rose 3 per cent. It meant that 58 per cent of British students accepted were from state schools, compared with 42 per cent from the independent sector. This compares with a 59/41 split the year before.

Geoff Parks, director of admissions at Cambridge, said the fact nearly three quarters of rejects went on to achieve three As - once regarded as an elite achievement and a likely passport to a top university place - reflected the 'highly competitive' nature of Cambridge admissions.

But critics say grade inflation is to blame. In 2009, one in eight students gained a hat-trick of As. Cambridge has set conditional offers of one A* and two As for many students this year, and some for two A*s.

Mr Parks said: 'We hope that will seem to be a fairer system because students who get into Cambridge will by and large have higher grades than those who don't.' He said ministers had been 'bending his ear' over the decision.

There are fears that the proportion of state school pupils will fall further if A* grades are used to discriminate, amid claims independent schools will be better geared to prepare candidates for questions linked to the new grade.

Mr Parks said the university was hopeful of progress in widening access to state school students. He said: 'The proportion of home students from state schools admitted in the 08/09 admissions cycle is 58 per cent. 'While this represents a small decrease, minor fluctuations in the figures are common, and a one percentage point change is not statistically significant.

'Cambridge is pleased that the gains made in this area last year, when we reported an increase of four percentage points, have to a large extent been retained.

'While the figures remain reasonably stable, we are also very conscious of the need to keep reinforcing the message that Cambridge is a welcoming and inclusive place.'

SOURCE



British Fee-paying schools hit by recession as pupil numbers drop

Independent schools have had their first fall in pupil numbers for five years as the recession hits admissions.

The overall figure in Britain fell by 2,645 to 511,886 at the start of this year, down 0.6 per cent. Were it not for a big rise in admissions of overseas students it would have been greater — the number of British children fell by 1 per cent.

Fees rose to an average of £12,558 a year, up by 4 per cent, although this increase was limited by schools deferring building projects.

The independent sector said that given the recession, the drop in pupil numbers had been modest.

In the recession of 1990-91, admissions to independent schools held up — but they fell for the next three years and were flat for a further year before recovering from 1996. Pupil numbers have risen continuously since, bar a fall in 2005 that heads attribute to demographics, and reached a peak last year.

Independent schools continued to be increasingly popular with parents from across the world. Numbers of overseas pupils from non-British families rose by 7.4 per cent to 23,307.

Hong Kong sent the largest number of children to British schools, 5,308, followed by the rest of China, with 3,109. Between them they accounted for more than a third of non-British overseas pupils. There were 2,265 German children, the next largest group, 1,197 Russians and 1,006 Americans.

Schools reported demand to be growing most strongly in Europe and Asia — with the exception of Japan where there had been a significant drop.

More than one in three children at British boarding schools are from abroad, compared with fewer than a quarter six years ago.

Having competed by offering ever-improving facilities during their boom years, independent schools slashed spending on new buildings last year by £42.6 million, or 11.3 per cent, as they sought to keep fee increases down, although in some cases tougher bank lending played a part.

The proportion of children who received help with their fees dropped slightly from 33.1 per cent last year to 32.5 per cent. Of those, only 7.2 per cent were children from families on modest or low incomes on means-tested bursaries. The largest proportion of subsidies was for pupils with siblings at the school or parents on the staff, in the Armed Forces or the clergy, followed by merit-based scholarships.

SOURCE



Double blind study ends fish oil myth

But there is a lot of face-saving going on

Parents who buy fish oil tablets to boost their children’s brain power are wasting their money, the largest study of its kind suggests. An analysis of primary school pupils found that reading, spelling and handwriting were not improved by taking omega-3 ‘clever capsules’.

It contradicts a raft of other research which has credited the pills and powders with boosting mental ability and exam grades.

But the academics say their study is more thorough than many others. Rather than just giving fish oils to all the children, some were given dummy pills instead, a technique that allows for a truer picture of any resulting benefits.

For four months, 450 children aged eight to ten at 18 schools in South Wales took either omega-3 supplements or placebos. The children, parents, teachers and even the researchers were unaware of who had taken what until the end of the study.

The results of a battery of tests revealed the fish oil pills did not improve the youngsters’ work – although it did appear that those taking them were more attentive.

Researchers also found that around 30 of the 450 children had very low levels of omega-3 fat in their blood to begin with.

Researcher Professor Amanda Kirby said the study was bigger than any other of its kind. She said that while supplements might help some youngsters who have trouble concentrating in class, the conclusion for parents of children who are not having problems at school is that healthy eating is all that is needed.

She said: ‘The primary message always has got to be to start with a good diet. ‘We have to look at eating more fish and less processed food. ‘It is not just that children are eating less fish, they are eating more rubbish as well. ‘If children have a relatively varied diet and don’t seem to have problems, it is probably not going to help them.’

For youngsters with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or learning difficulties, fish oils are ‘worth a try’, she said.

Professor Kirby, of the University of Wales, said that more research was needed into the wider benefits of omega-3 pills, which cost from £3 to £15 for a month’s supply.

Abundant in fish such as herring, mackerel, salmon and fresh tuna, the fats have been credited with health benefits from staving off heart disease, cancer and depression, to warding off Alzheimer’s disease.

The professor said: ‘Fatty acids make up 20 per cent of the brain and are going to have an effect in a number of different ways. ‘Some of the studies on cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease are pretty convincing, but we need more research.’

Last week, a British study questioned the ability of fish oil supplements to keep the mind sharp into old age. Researcher Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, studied 900 volunteers aged 70 to 80 from England and Wales. Those who took fish oils had far greater levels of omega-3 in their bloodstream but fared no better in the tests.

Dr Dangour said: ‘Although this is the longest trial of its kind ever conducted, it may be that it was not long enough for any true beneficial effects to be detected.’

Last night, manufacturers said that although it is unclear if fish oils give healthy children an extra boost, they play an essential role in the development of brain and body. With few children eating the recommended two weekly portions of fish, supplements can help youngsters reach their potential, they say.

Dr Carrie Ruxton, a dietician, warned against a message that encouraged parents to throw fish oil supplements in the bin. ‘Parents need to know there is an option if they can’t get their children to eat fish,’ she said.

SOURCE



British Boy, two, left in tears as nursery staff confiscate his 'unhealthy' cheese sandwich

Disgusting fanatics -- particularly since the "benefits" of eating fruit and veg. have recently been scientifically disproved. But ideology trumps science every time



When little Jack Ormisher opened his packed lunch, he was delighted to find inside a cheese sandwich his mummy had made for him. But before he could tuck into the meal, staff at the nursery he attended snatched it away - leaving him in tears.

Apparently, the sandwich broke their 'healthy eating' rules. Instead, the two-year-old was offered fruit and vegetables.

Later when Jack's father arrived to pick him up from the Westfield Children's Centre in Pemberton, near Wigan, staff told him that if his son wanted sandwiches in future they must include lettuce or tomato.

Jack's mother, Dorothy Gallear, 32, was so incensed she has now enrolled him at a different nursery. 'I think it is absolutely pathetic and these people are playing Big Brother with people's lives,' she said yesterday. 'The attitude of the nursery was ridiculous. They were looking down their noses at me.

'When I told people at his new nursery what had happened all over a cheese sandwich some laughed with shock and others were horrified.'

Mother-of-two Miss Gallear said Jack started at Westfield in September last year, spending three afternoons a week there but she decided to make him his own sandwiches after he developed several stomach bugs. 'He was having what they prepared for him to eat.

'It was fruit mostly so I decided that I would prepare something for him at home to take in so I knew exactly what he was eating.

'This was the first time I'd sent in my food. They said it was fine as long as it was a healthy snack. He did have some veg and a piece of melon in his box. 'But my partner went to pick him up and they told him that if we were going to bring sandwiches in it had to have at least a piece of lettuce on it.'

The nursery's list of acceptable 'healthy options' includes various fruit and vegetables plus rice, pasta and potatoes.

A spokesman for Wigan Council, which runs the nursery, said: 'The centre has a list of recommended healthy food, according to national guidelines, which children are encouraged to eat. 'A cheese sandwich would not feature on the list.'

Miss Gallear and her partner, Harry Ormisher, transferred Jack to a nursery in nearby Orrell.

Westfield's manager, Aukje Clegg, said: 'The decision to remove the child from the centre was taken by the parents. 'We have informed them that a place is still available for their child at Westfield should they reconsider.'

SOURCE



A non-dogmatic feminist on female IQ

Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, is a brave man. In a letter to The Times responding to a lament by Susan Greenfield about the dearth of women in science, the professor came to a stinging conclusion. It’s the stupid genes, stupid.

Women are simply not as clever as men, he wrote. Besides, they have different types of intelligence — men are stronger on reasoning and maths, while women have more verbal intelligence. Thus men are over-represented in the physical sciences and women can make successful newspaper columnists. Gee thanks, Prof.

To judge by the deluge of furious responses from Times readers, women are just a little peeved at the professor’s verdict. Amid the vitriol, however, no one paused to ponder this question: are we more stupid than men? What if the professor is right?

The liberators of women believed that once the patriarchy was overthrown, the differences between men and women would disappear. Gender was a cultural construct. My generation of women, the lucky inheritors of our mothers’ battle, grew up believing that there was no limit to what we could achieve. Yet in this post-patriarchal world, gender still looms large. Men and women are different. Some of these differences may be explicable as lingering legacies of the patriarchy, but not all of them.

Men may be from Mars, but does that mean that their brains are, as Professor Lynn implies, better?

We are at the early stage of unpicking the mysteries of the mind. We can play God, creating matter where there was none before. We can manufacture antimatter, and split the atom down to fundamental particles. But we can not yet quantify the impact of culture on grey matter. We have not untangled nature from nurture.

One of Professor Lynn’s contentions is that men have a greater range of intelligence — there are more men with very high IQs and more with very low. We women muddle along in mediocrity.

In The Strangest Man, Graham Farmelo’s book about the mathematical genius who first posited the existence of antimatter, Paul Dirac emerges as a man of extreme intelligence, and no social skills. His principal guide in theoretical physics was a quest for beauty — the more beautiful the maths, the nearer the truth. It takes a certain type of brain to see the beauty in maths.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, of the University of Cambridge, says that there is a link between the scientific brain and autism in men. He argues that men possess brains that are better at systematising and analysing. Women’s brains are more about empathy and social skills. In the Baron-Cohen view of the world, scientific genius dances with autism. The “extreme male brain” produces both extraordinary talent and absurdly poor social skills.

There is a convincing counter-argument, however, that embedded cultural stereotypes, rather than genes, are hampering women in science. The lack of female winners of Nobel prizes actually supports the nurture argument. Neither Rosalind Franklin nor Jocelyn Bell won Nobels for their respective work on DNA and radio pulsars in space: two of the most important scientific developments of the past century, yet the female contribution was overlooked and belittled...

Some of those cultural influences have not gone away. Little girls are still swathed in pink and encouraged to embrace their inner princess. They are taught early that prettiness is the apogee of female ambition. As Mattel’s Barbie famously said, when prodded: “Math is hard!”

My own view, but I fear it is based largely on faith rather than hard evidence, is that Professor Lynn is profoundly and utterly wrong. One day science, rather than faith, may give us an answer.

And herein lies the real challenge for women. At present, it is easy to rebut the likes of Professor Lynn. His studies are based on IQ evidence, and IQ data is controversial at best. But what happens in the unlikely event that someone proves, definitively, that women’s brains are, on balance, not very good at science? Or that scientific genius is a very male preserve?

When Galileo threatened the fabric of the religious orthodoxy with his observations of the heavens, which proved Copernicus’s theory about the Earth orbiting the Sun, he ran up against the might of the Catholic Church. He invited his inquisitors to look through the telescope — yet they refused.

The new cultural orthodoxy is liberalism. Yet we liberals are remarkably illiberal when faced with dissent from our cosy, equality-driven view of the world. The American academic Lawrence Summers was forced to grovel publicly over remarks that innate ability, rather than discrimination, accounted for the dearth of female scientists.

One day, a scientist may come to us, and say: here is the telescope, there is the evidence. Look. Yesterday’s feminists would have argued that the telescope was made by a man, pointed by a man at man-filtered evidence. But times have changed, and a new generation of feminists must not allow dogma to trump fact. If nature and nurture are untangled, and the results are anathema to our feminist sensibilities, we must at least have sufficient courage to peer into the telescope.

SOURCE. (The lady cannot see the telescope. There is already plenty of evidence of differences between male and female brains)



Must not speak the truth about homosexuals in Britain

We read:

"A would-be Tory MP from Scotland has been suspended after describing gay people as not "normal”, it was disclosed today. The comments made by Philip Lardner on his campaign website were branded “deeply offensive and unacceptable” by a party spokeswoman.

Under the heading "What I believe in", the North Ayrshire and Arran candidate had written: “Homosexuality is not ’normal behaviour’.”

The comments have now been removed from the website but the gay news service Pink News said Mr Lardner, a primary school teacher, declared his support for parents and teachers who do not want their children to be taught about gay rights.

The section, which was removed from the website this afternoon, said: "I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common-sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it."

Source

28 April, 2010

How could this happen? Former Land Girl honoured by Brown dies after she is left to 'wallow in her own filth' on NHS ward

Her 'loyal and devoted' service as a Land Girl in the Second World War won her praise from Gordon Brown. But this is the horrifyingly undignified state in which Clara Stokes had to live out her last days on an NHS ward.

Helpless and confused after suffering a stroke, the 84-year-old was left dehydrated, hungry and lying in her own faeces in a hospital bed for six hours. Relatives claim overworked nurses had ignored her.

Her daughter, Elle Chambers, photographed her plight and kept notes on her treatment during daily visits to the Luton and Dunstable Hospital.

The hospital has foundation status - a title given to NHS flagships. But Mrs Chambers, 57, was so appalled by the 'inhumane' conditions her mother endured that she has written to the Prime Minister. She released the harrowing photographs of her mother after a poll for the Mail found that barely one in five voters think a doubling of budgets has improved the NHS.

Mrs Chambers and her daughter Michelle Plaford, 37, also found that water had been placed too far away from her bed and no staff had come to help her drink for up to 16 hours.

The pair were so disgusted by conditions they tried to feed other hungry and thirsty patients, only to be told by nursing staff they could not for 'health and safety reasons'.

At one stage the hospital almost ran out of supplies so nurses trawled wards for medication, Mrs Chambers added.

A temporary nurse misread Mrs Stokes' notes and forced uncrushed tablets down her throat, almost causing her to choke to death.

Doctors and nurses who misplaced health notes even thought Mrs Stokes was a man for the first two days, after she was admitted on December 16.

Outraged at her treatment, Mrs Stokes's family removed her from the hospital in Luton. She died in a nursing home just days later on February 28.

Mrs Chambers wrote to Gordon Brown following the death to complain of the 'negligence', and was told by No.10 the matter had been passed to the Department of Health.

Mrs Chambers said: 'Gordon Brown said the country depended on her for survival but when she depended on her country for her survival where was it? 'I cannot stand to see Gordon Brown spouting off about the good he has done for the health service. 'It sickens me. He would never say the same if it were his own mother being treated in such an inhumane way.'

Mrs Chambers and daughter Michelle, of Northampton, spent every day in the stroke ward between midday and 8pm changing, washing and feeding Mrs Stokes. Mrs Stokes, a retired hairdresser, was left paralysed down the left side of her body by the stroke and unable to speak.

The only time they didn't go and visit Mrs Stokes was when her ward was in isolation following a stomach bug outbreak and visiting hours were restricted. But when they were finally allowed into the ward, they were left stunned by the conditions Mrs Stokes had been left in.

She added: 'We finally walked in and my daughter said what is that under her arm? We lifted it up and she was covered in her own diarrhoea. 'She was paralysed and couldn't call for help. This was after 3pm in the afternoon and the last time she had been checked was at 9am.'

Just 24 hours later the family found a stricken Mrs Stokes' foot trapped between bed posts caused by a faulty bed pump. It was not known how long she was trapped and had to be freed by the matron.

Mrs Chambers added: 'I think dogs are treated better than my mother was. She was left in a pond of her own filth. Worse than an animal. 'The nurses were so overworked they haven't the time to be compassionate.

'It's so sad she was in a terrible state. My mum was 84, she was a really lively woman and was well-loved. 'They gave out food but left it out of reach of patients. You are lying there, hungry, you can't move because you've had a stroke and there is food just out of reach.

'We were warned not to feed them but you can't just sit there and watch. 'My daughter and I were endlessly helping out other patients.

'I've grown up with the National Health Service I'm just praying I don't get ill.'

Mrs Stokes was briefly moved to Capwell Grange Nursing Home on January 14 but returned to the hospital because she was not eating or drinking. The family and doctors agreed to stop her support and she died on February 28.

Mrs Stokes was married to husband Roy for 50 years before he died 10 years ago with cancer. They had two other children David, 55, and Andrew, 51.

During the Second World War she was in the Land Army, made popular by the 1998 film Land Girls starring Anna Friel and Rachel Weisz. She farmed and harvested the land in Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, while all the men were fighting the Nazis.

In 2008 she was given a medal and thanked by Gordon Brown at a ceremony in Bedford. Mr Brown signed Clara's Land Girl certificate praising her efforts 'at a time when our country depended upon you for its survival' in WWII and awarding her a medal.

Women were put to work in farms across Britain during Second World War as part of the war effort and affectionately known as Land Girls. In 2007 the government announced it would reward the efforts of 30,000 surviving Land Girls with The Badge of Honour medal and certificate.

Mrs Chambers, who lives with retired firefighter husband Colin, 66, said her experience left her fearing ever having to rely on the NHS.

Luton and Dunstable Hospital apologised to the family yesterday and said it was investigating the complaints. A spokesman denied Mrs Stokes was left unattended or that she was ever deprived of food, medication or water.

The spokesman said: 'The hospital has compelling evidence from detailed documentation to show that Mrs Stokes was not left unattended for long periods of time and that she received good nursing care and frequent attention following statutory guidelines and nursing practice.

'This is evidenced by a detailed food diary, mouthcare, being turned two-hourly to prevent pressure sores, personal care (including continence care) several times a day. We are sorry if the family felt Mrs Stokes' care was not to the standard they felt acceptable.'

The spokesman also refuted allegations that the patient's foot was caught in the bed rails or that she was left 'Unattended or dehydrated for hours on end'.

She added: 'On one occasion a nurse mistakenly gave Mrs Stokes a whole tablet instead of crushing it. Although Mrs Stokes had difficulty swallowing , it did not cause her to choke and the nurse involved reported this matter immediately to the ward sister and an apology was made to the patient and her family.'

She added: 'We regret that Mrs Stokes' family have felt the need to complain about her care while she was on ward 17 and ward 15 and the hospital has apologised for any distressing circumstances recognising how upsetting some aspects of personal care can be for relatives. 'Staff had a number of conversations about care and progress with the family during the patient's stay. The formal investigation into Mrs Chambers' complaint is continuing.'

Downing Street said the matter had been referred urgently to the Department of Health.

SOURCE



Shakespeare vanishing from British classrooms

On the anniversary of Shakespeare's birth and death, Anthony Seldon asks why we are allowing the world's foremost playwright and England's cultural figurehead to disappear from the classroom

Forget the election, the Clegg bounces and the Brown gyrations. Blank out Icelandic volcanoes and flight disruptions. For today is the happy conjunction of St George's Day and Shakespeare's possible birthday, his 446th no less, as well as the day he died. It is as good a day as any to be celebrating all that is English, and the world's greatest playwright.

Whichever party wins on May 6 must champion a renaissance of Shakespeare in our schools and restore him to his rightful place across the nation. Shakespeare should make us proud to be British.

Familiarity with Shakespeare must begin early, because it is there that the roots are laid for the rest of life. Yet the Bard has been on the retreat in schools. The dropping in October 2008 of tests for all pupils at 14 may have had much to recommend it in our exam-drunk country, but it has damaged the study of Shakespeare, as his plays were a compulsory element. The numbers of pupils in this 11-to-14 age group who have seen one of his plays in the theatre has halved since then.

The new English Language and Literature GCSEs, beginning this autumn, downgrade the importance of studying Shakespeare through live performance in favour of Shakespeare on film. Schools increasingly are turning to "International" GCSEs, which are more rigorous than traditional GCSEs, but do not require pupils to focus on Shakespeare.

He remains central to English Literature at A-level, but a declining percentage of students are now opting for the subject, while media and film studies are growing apace. Increasingly, there are teachers joining the profession who hardly studied Shakespeare at school, and lack the same passion of older colleagues who were reared on him.

Why does this matter? If our aim is to turn out, not civilised and sensitive young men and women, but unthinking automatons, then the dwindling of Shakespeare does not matter. But few Telegraph readers will agree with the new philistinism.

On St George's Day, thanks to Shakespeare, we can feel proud of our English heritage. No writer has contributed more to our national identity. In times of crisis, we turn to him. Churchill's government did so during the Second World War, funding Laurence Olivier's Henry V as morale-boosting propaganda. How many of today's young can quote Hal's Saint Crispin's Day speech: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother"? Most who revelled in the television miniseries Band of Brothers would never have known the origin of the phrase.

Shakespeare has given us so many of them – "more in sorrow than in anger"; "in my mind's eye"; "old men forget"; "a sea change"; "all that glisters is not gold"; "all the world's a stage"; "as dead as a doornail"; "vanished into thin air"; "fight fire with fire"; "wild goose chase"; "foul play"; "good riddance"; "in a pickle"; "more fool you", "mum's the word", "my journey's end", "sent him packing", "the game is up"; "the truth will out". Studying Shakespeare opens the young to a world of language that will enrich their lives for ever.

His plays give unparalleled insights into human nature. He is the greatest psychologist of all time. I have just returned from directing my sixth formers in Othello in the Far East. In Beijing and Ho Chi Minh City, many in the young audience did not understand a word uttered; but they were engrossed. No spinmaster in this, or any other, election has ever approached the manipulative subtlety of Iago.

As with the Greek playwrights, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes, the dramas move deeply into the human psyche. They portray all the seven archetypal plots described by Christopher Booker: Henry V thus typifies "the quest"; The Tempest "voyage and return"; Richard III "killing the monster"; Twelfth Night "rags to riches"; As You Like It "comedy"; The Winter's Tale "rebirth and redemption", while Hamlet gives us true "tragedy", with the perceptive young recognising the same story as The Lion King.

Shakespeare is the best representative of the English renaissance, the age of our greatest artistic and intellectual flowering. Our young need to know about it so that they can gain a better understanding of how English culture – their culture – has developed, with Shakespeare its finest example.

The British obsession with exams is a principal factor in the decline. The imperative of drilling students to learn the dross that examiners expect risks killing our best literature. Instead of being a delight to the imagination and spirit, classes can become a dull drudge of learning "correct" quotations and answers.

Teachers increasingly find that they lack the time to bring Shakespeare to life by allowing the students to read the whole play and act out scenes. Instead they do extracts. "I'd like to be more creative, but playing with the text will not attain the school's academic targets," said one teacher, responding to a survey commissioned by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC). Unsurprisingly, less than one fifth of the students agreed with the proposition that "Shakespeare is fun".

Seeing Shakespeare in the theatre is much profounder for students even than watching wonderful films such as Franco Zeffirelli's (1968) or Baz Luhrmann's (1996) Romeo and Juliet, or Kenneth Branagh's (1993) Much Ado. But many professional productions are too long and worthy, even for adults. It is little fun for the students, their teachers or parents, when the coach arrives back at the school gates at 1am.

The RSC, with its special abridged school versions, has it right, and its productions for schools are proving justly popular. You do not need much more than two hours to appreciate a Shakespeare production. The excellent 2007 production of Othello at the Globe Theatre on London's South Bank was marred by its length; the first Act lasted nearly 40 minutes. It could have been cut to 20.

None of the political parties has produced a manifesto on Shakespeare. Let me propose one. All children at primary level should know the stories and see simplified forms of all the major Shakespeare plays. They should learn passages from Shakespeare. At eight, I had to learn "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more" from Henry V, and have always been grateful for that (memorising poetry is the entitlement of every child).

Those in their first two years of secondary school should be offered opportunities to act in a Shakespeare, and should study "easier" plays such as Julius Caesar and A Midsummer Night's Dream. Thirteen to 16-year-olds should all study a tragedy – Hamlet or Macbeth would be ideal, a comedy such as Twelfth Night, and a history, perhaps Richard III. Lessons should involve acting key scenes, because that helps to create a deeper understanding, and brings character and plot to life. The RSC and other bodies should hold annual conferences and festivals to encourage a love for Shakespeare, and implant passion lost.

On St George's Day, let us remind ourselves that England is a "precious jewel set in a silver sea". Readers will recognise this line from Richard II. How many of our young will continue to do so unless we act now?

SOURCE



Useless British police again

Motorist walks into police station to report vandalism ... but is told to PHONE call centre. They are only interested in political crimes

When vandals damaged Andy Bevan's car, he thought he was doing the sensible thing by visiting his local police station to report the attack. But to his astonishment, he was told he could not register the crime in person - and had to make a telephone call instead.

A community support officer handed Mr Bevan, 57, a card and asked him to ring the number on it. Mr Bevan, a retired industrial chemist, described the attitude of Humberside Police as 'ridiculous'. He said he visited Peeler House station in Hessle, near Hull, after his tyres were damaged because he wanted the culprits caught and wasn't concerned about getting a crime number for an insurance claim.

However, he was told only the command centre could deal with the incident - and not the officers at the station. He said: 'I told the PCSO at the counter my car was vandalised last night. He said words to the effect "have you rung?" 'I said I'd just popped in to report it, and he said, "you can't just pop in, you have to ring".

'I said it was absolutely outrageous and if I saw bank robbers going into a bank I couldn't come in and tell them that it was happening? They said that was different as it was a crime in progress. 'He said you have to ring in and gave me a card and that was it.

'He wasn't being officious - in fact I'd give him ten out of ten for bedside manner. But I just think it's ridiculous that you can't report a crime in a police station - end of story.' Mr Bevan was then told he could use the telephone inside the police station to report the crime

Mr Bevan, who has not made an insurance claim for the damage caused by the vandals, added: 'I actually wanted someone to be caught and punished but I don't think it's the police's remit any more.'

Humberside Police yesterday failed to clarify whether a mistake had been made, but insisted crimes could be reported in person or by telephone. Chief Superintendent Paul Davidson said: 'If a person wants to speak to an officer within a police station instead of the command centre or arrange a suitable time in which to take a statement, we can provide that facility. 'If this gentleman was not satisfied with the service he received, I would like to apologise to him and invite him to discuss the matter with me personally so we can reach a satisfactory outcome.'

The incident comes just weeks after a shopkeeper stopped another Humberside Police officer to ask for help in catching teenage thieves and was told to 'call the police'. Graham Taylor, 50, was chasing two teenagers who had stolen spirits from his newsagents, also in Hessle, East Yorkshire. He stopped an officer in a marked patrol car who told him 'you had better call the police' instead of giving chase.

Mr Taylor then rang 999 himself. However, the officers assigned to deal with the crime missed the radio call because they were celebrating at a colleague's retirement party.

SOURCE



Parents who spank their children should be prosecuted, says Europe human rights body

Parents who smack their children should be prosecuted for assault, a European human rights group said last night. The Council of Europe is calling for a complete ban on smacking across the continent, saying even the smallest slap can leave psychological damage. One official even compared parents who smack to men who violently beat their wives.

The Council says that Britain lags behind other countries who have initiated a ban.

It claims that one of the reasons that the UK has not put in place a ban is because of the 'traditional parent-child relationship' here which they claim is one of authority.

But the call from Europe to outlaw smacking provoked fury from parents' rights groups, who said it was wrong for Governments to try to dictate what parents could do in their own homes.

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust said: 'The Council of Europe is failing to recognise that parents are authority figures in their children's lives. 'It is parents, and not national governments, who bear the responsibility of caring for children, nurturing them, and correcting them where necessary.

'As with any other authority figure, parents need to have sanctions at their disposal when their children misbehave, and they must be free to exercise their discretion and judgment with respect to their use. 'In a free society it is vital that parents should be allowed to bring up their children in a reasonable way, in line with their convictions.

'Generations of parents have proved the benefit of moderate smacking to correct their children's behaviour, and research continues to show its positive effects when used in the context of a loving home where children are respected and cherished. 'It has become a contentious issue only because of a vocal minority who are determined to undermine the authority of parents.'

European judges ruled a decade ago that smacking could breach children's rights and in the last three years some 20 countries have implemented a ban. Britain is among a handful of European states, including France and Poland, who are holding out against the pressure for a ban.

Corporal punishment is banned in British schools but parents have a defence against assault charges on the grounds of 'reasonable chastisement'.

Council of Europe deputy secretary general Maud de Boer-Buquicchio said even smacks which did not leave a mark could cause serious psychological harm. She said: 'Children are not mini-human beings with mini-human rights. 'Even if there are no visible scars on the children there can be other scars because of the humiliating effect.

'When we talk about violence against women everyone agrees with that and the same should be true for children. Human rights do not stop at the front door of people's homes. 'It is in my view important to remove the defence of smacking from the criminal law.'

She pointed to Sweden, where smacking was banned 30 years ago, and claimed its children were not more 'wild or indisciplined' as a result.

Academic research released earlier this year found children who are smacked by their parents grow up to be happier and more successful than those who are never physically disciplined.

It revealed children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school once they reach their teenage years, are more likely to do voluntary work and go to university. But those who are smacked after six were more likely to misbehave and become involved in fights at school.

SOURCE





27 April, 2010

Labour no longer trusted on NHS: New poll shows damning effect on voters of squandered billions

Labour has wasted so much money on the NHS that voters no longer believe it is safe in their hands.

An exclusive poll for the Daily Mail found that fewer than one in five voters see significant improvements in the service, despite a doubling of budgets.

Almost two thirds say out-of-hours GP cover has deteriorated under Labour, and a huge majority call for GPs to be forced to take back responsibility for patient care at evenings and weekends.

Voters believe Labour has squandered billions on bureaucracy and that the Tories are now the party best placed to look after the NHS.

The results of the Harris survey are evidence that David Cameron's decision to put Tory support for the NHS at the heart of his election strategy is paying off.

By contrast, it emerged yesterday that Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has called for the NHS to be broken up. In an interview before he became Lib Dem leader, Mr Clegg said the party should 'break a long-standing taboo' and consider replacing the service with a European-style insurance system that would end the principle that healthcare is free at the point of use.

Mr Clegg said: 'We do want to break up the NHS. We don't want to privatise it, we want to break it up.'

Yesterday's poll suggests that Labour's historic claim to be the party of the NHS has been fatally damaged since 1997.

Gordon Brown attempted to regain the initiative by launching Labour's health manifesto, promising the right to NHS care at home, including home births and end-of-life care.

But when asked which party would be most effective in managing the NHS, 27 per cent of voters said Conservative, 26 Labour and just 13 LibDem. The remainder said 'none of these' or 'don't know'. Although the Tory lead is marginal, it is hugely symbolic.

Voters give Labour some credit, saying they have seen some improvement since the party took power, with 19 per cent calling it 'significant'. But 56 per cent say that while there has been improvement, it is not significant enough to justify the rise in costs.

Another 18 per cent think there has been no improvement at all, meaning 74 per cent do not believe that Labour has secured value for taxpayers' money.

The survey reveals grave concern about changes introduced by Labour, allowing GPs to opt out of responsibility for patients outside office hours.

Private companies have taken over cover, sometimes employing foreign doctors with little grasp of English.

Of those who said they had used out-of-hours services since 2004, 60 per cent said the service had got worse.

Two thirds - 67 per cent - agree with the Tory and Lib-Dem position that GPs should be forced to take back responsibility for out-of-hours care.

Four out of five voters believe the standard of English among NHS doctors and nurses is a problem.

There is also widespread opposition to the work of NICE, the rationing watchdog set up by Labour to decide which drugs are cost-effective and which are not.

More than three quarters - 77 per cent - said the health service should give lifeextending drugs to everyone who needs them, regardless of cost. The Tories have pledged to supply cancer drugs that Labour has denied to patients.

The poll revealed that a large majority of voters want to preserve the NHS and are against any cut in the number of doctors and nurses.

More than 90 per cent believe major savings can be made without cutting frontline services, mainly by slashing the organisation's bloated bureaucracy.

In a speech to the Royal College of Nursing, Mr Brown sought to convince nurses and voters of his commitment to the health service, speaking about his daughter Jennifer, who died soon after her premature birth, and his son Fraser, who has cystic fibrosis.

He said: 'We feel like parents who have been in the presence of angels dressed in nurses' uniforms, performing the most amazing works of mercy and care.'

Mr Brown ducked calls for a nursing pay freeze and pledged to protect nurses' pensions - a move which flies in the face of Labour's pledge to tackle the spiralling cost of gold-plated public sector retirement payouts.

But he was unable to guarantee that no front-line workers would lose their jobs after the election.

SOURCE



Social mobility in England 'lags behind other countries'

And useless schools are a big part of the reason

Parental background has a bigger impact on children’s education achievement in England than in many other developed nations, according to a major report.

Pupils with poorly educated mothers and fathers were more likely to fail at school in England than in countries such as Australia, Germany and the United States, the study suggested.

Researchers also found that the link between pupils and their parents was almost as strong now as it was in previous generations, despite billions of pounds spent by Labour to boost standards among the poorest children.

The study – commissioned by the Sutton Trust – suggested that pupils born into families with a history of underachievement were still much more likely to be resigned to low-paid jobs when they grew up.

Sir Peter Lampl, the charity’s chairman, said failure to improve social mobility risked pushing the UK to the “bottom of the class in education’s world order”. "Education mobility points the way to the level of future social mobility in this country,” he said.

“While there are some signs of progress, we are still not serving the needs of the current crop of school pupils as well as we should and parental background remains a much more significant determiner of children's life chances in the UK than elsewhere.”

The findings suggested that the divisions were down to the fact that well educated parents were more likely to play the system to get sons and daughters into the best secondary schools.

“The achievement gap widens during the teenage years, almost entirely because children with degree educated parents are far more likely to attend higher performing secondary schools, benefiting from a combination of better resources, teaching, advice and positive peer effects,” the report said.

“A major obstacle to education, and consequently social mobility, is therefore the high levels of social segregation in English secondary schools.”

Researchers at Essex University analysed the test scores of thousands of children born in 1989/90 – and educated almost entirely under Labour – and compared them with results of equivalent exams by children born at a similar time in other nations.

The findings show that in England, 56 per cent of children of degree educated parents were in the top quarter of test results at the age of 14, compared with just nine per cent of youngsters whose parents left school without any O-levels – a gap of 47 percentage points.

This was twice the equivalent gap seen in Australia – 23 percentage points – and bigger than the 37 point gap in Germany and 43 point gap in the US.

Researchers also looked at a separate measure – the number of books a child has access to in the home – which is seen as another indicator of parental education.

The study found that in England, children with access to more than 100 books were 4.7 times more likely to be among the top performers in maths at the age of 13 compared with pupils who had access to less than 100 books.

In Australia, children were three times more likely to do well, in the Netherlands they were 3.1 times more likely, while in Ontario, Canada, teenagers with access to a large numbers of books were 2.9 times more likely to succeed.

The gap was also bigger than in countries including Turkey, the Slovak Republic, Korea, Italy and Belgium.

In a further analysis, researchers looked at GCSE and test results in England and compared them with previous generations.

The findings show that in 2006, the odds of obtaining at least five good GCSEs were four times higher for children with degree educated parents than those whose mothers and fathers did not go to university.

This was only slightly better than for previous generations of children, the study said. For children born in 1970, the odds of obtaining good O-level results were 4.6 times higher if their parents were degree educated, while for those born in 1958 the odds were 6.5 times higher.

The report said that the gulf had closed slightly over time but "stark achievement gaps between children of degree educated parents and those of uneducated parents remain".

SOURCE



Problems of Britain's welfare State

The social benefits of the welfare state are now more than outweighed by its social costs: diminished subjectivity, corroded communities, and increased state power

Over the past couple of decades, a new understanding of welfare has been put at the centre of the elite’s project to connect with, engage with and remould the citizenry. Where the old welfare state was largely about providing citizens with the material things they needed to survive, the new welfare state is a far more therapeutic institution and is about redefining what it means to be a citizen and how citizens relate to the state.

The old notion of the welfare state as a ‘safety net’ to help citizens cope with hardship assumed that individuals, families and communities were generally able to run their own lives most of the time. Social assistance, therefore, was designed to return people to a situation where they could get on with their lives unaided, as autonomous, capable human beings. But the model of welfare that has developed over the past two decades entirely rejects the idea that individuals have the capacity to run their lives. Welfare provision now starts from the assumption that individuals and communities are incapable of managing their own health and lifestyles, family life, child-rearing and informal community relations without the constant intervention of the state and its institutions to advise, train, counsel and (re)educate them.

The change has been so profound that it is really no longer appropriate to talk about a ‘welfare’ state at all. In its place there has developed what former New Labour prime minister Tony Blair described in 2006 as an ‘enabling state’. This new ‘enabling state’ might promote itself through the rhetoric of responsibility and empowerment, but in fact its impact on individuals and communities has been extremely disabling. Virtually every welfare-state intervention is now premised on the assumption that individuals are vulnerable, physically and psychologically incapacitated, and in need of constant therapeutic intervention....

The social provision of material necessities and resources to individuals who, through no fault of their own, were unable to provide for themselves is an expression of the important humanist responsibility that society has to all of its members in times of need. The recognition that poverty, illness and unemployment are social problems, and not the result of individual moral failings, was implicit in the model of welfare that was dominant in Britain from the end of the Second World War to the 1970s, and is an essential insight for anyone concerned with social justice.

However, it is important to set the positive benefits of the welfare state against the constant potential for the ever-greater intervention of the state in society, and the consequent domination and structure of dependency that this establishes, to limit the capacity of individuals and communities to take control of their circumstances. By providing a buffer against the worst deprivations caused by poverty, unemployment and social alienation, the welfare state also plays a significant role in encouraging people to accommodate to their lot.

The criteria by which any past, current or proposed welfare intervention should be judged is in terms of the capacity that it gives individuals to take greater control of their lives – to live the lives that they want to lead, with the means to take control of the resources that they feel are necessary. On this basis, it would be wrong to dismiss the gains of education, healthcare and material welfare benefits – when people are in need, a decent society should develop mechanisms to meet those needs. But it would be naive to overlook the hardnosed political origins of the welfare state, and its role in de-radicalising and controlling working-class aspiration, and to leave unexplored the increasingly problematic role that a new therapeutic welfare state plays today.

From welfare to therapy

The old aspiration, amongst social reformers at least, to provide social mechanisms that might empower people to take greater control of their lives has been entirely absent in the discussion and development of the welfare state over the past two decades. Indeed, the new ‘enabling state’, as Blair christened it, is a direct consequence of a diminished view of the capabilities of individuals and communities.

Where the welfare state was in essence an attempt to head off radical, working-class politics, the motivation for the transformation of the meaning of welfare in recent years has been a semi-conscious attempt by the state to engage with, connect to, and in numerous ways reshape and resocialise the citizenry. Let us consider two examples.

The case of children and families

One of the most progressive campaigns of the feminist movement in the 1970s and 80s was for the provision of universally accessible childcare on demand. At first sight, it might seem as if this demand has finally been achieved with Sure Start, the New Labour government’s ‘programme to deliver the best start in life for every child by bringing together early education, childcare, health and family support’. Sure Start provides children’s centres (‘service hubs where children under five years old and their families can receive seamless integrated services and information’), through a guarantee of free ‘early education’ provision for three- and four-year-olds, and the promise of childcare provision for every child between the ages of three and 14, from 8am to 6pm. The only party political disagreement over Sure Start today concerns who will do the most to increase its funding and ability to provides services.

However, two insidious ideas underpin the Sure Start initiative. First, the assumption is that most parents are at best ignorant of how to raise their children, and at worst are utterly dysfunctional. The second is a fatalistically deterministic view of child development – an idea that miscreant adults and broken communities are the result of ‘bad parenting’ from the earliest months of a child’s life.

Sure Start aims to create healthier children by ‘supporting parents to care for their children both before and after birth’ [my emphasis]. In reality this involves the state teaching parents about the moral ills of smoking and drinking during pregnancy, and ensuring that children are fed the recommended five portions of fruit and veg a day, amongst other things. Sure Start even provides instructions to parents on how they should play with their children.

Such intervention undermines the authority and autonomy of parents and encourages them to view child-rearing and family life as an activity which can only be undertaken under the careful guidance of state-sanctioned experts. More than any previous social-service interventions in family life, which were traditionally directed towards a relatively small section of very deprived families, Sure Start aims to engage with families across all social classes. Sure Start assumes that state intervention is essential to produce properly socialised individuals and to keep families together, while ignoring many other problems related to childcare provision, access to decent education and the financial burden of raising children. It is all about therapeutically redirecting the population towards the right way of thinking and behaving and parenting, rather than providing them with the things and finances they might need.

Unemployment and incapacity

Over the past couple of years, society has been going through a deep economic recession, with the official level of unemployment reaching nearly 2.5million people. Consequently there has been much material insecurity and hardship for a great many individuals. However, in our response to these hardships, we have moved a long way from the period of industrial labour militancy that dominated the recession of the 1970s, and which played a large part in bringing to an end the traditional postwar welfare consensus. As Brendan O’Neill has argued, unemployment has ceased to be a political issue to which we see the possibility of social and political solutions.

In response to the current recession, the state is not readying troops of armed men to maintain social order – instead it is training an army of counsellors and therapists to help the newly unemployed cope with their changed circumstances. NHS Direct call-centre operatives have been encouraged to listen out for signs of depression amongst callers who have lost their jobs, while Jobcentres have been given the authority to refer jobseekers for cognitive behavioural therapy, with a promise that such therapy will soon be offered onsite at Jobcentres themselves.

These initiatives are only an expansion of the government’s stated intention, planned before the recession, to provide psychological therapies to the unemployed, not simply to help them cope with unemployment, but to help them to ‘develop the confidence’ to get back into work. Unemployment, in other words, is now seen as a problem of individual psychology rather than social and economic organisation. The changing understanding of unemployment, from political failing to individual handicap, is reflected in the fact that of the five million people currently out of work and claiming benefits in the UK, over 50 per cent are drawing Incapacity Benefit – they have been redefined as incapable of working rather than as being denied a job by the current social and economic framework.

While political parties do still express concern about the rising bills for the expansion of welfare, behind their rhetoric there is no real attempt to encourage any autonomy or independence. Instead, the mechanisms through which the unemployed will apparently be ‘assisted’ back into work involve an ongoing process of training, mentoring and support, which will continue even once work has been found. In other words, the assumption is that state intervention and support will be needed in order to maintain an individual’s capacity for work and employment.

The widely held assumption that many unemployment and incapacity claimants are cynically manipulating the welfare system misses the extent to which individuals have been encouraged by the new welfare state to understand themselves in terms of their physical incapacities and psychological vulnerabilities. That unemployment has come to be understood as a problem of individual incapacity and community attitudes and culture, rather than of social organisation, is expressed in the Conservative Party’s diagnosis that ‘in many parts of the country, worklessness is being passed from generation to generation’. Here, the children of unemployed families are understood as being socialised by a degenerate culture; such children are seen as being less likely to achieve at school and more likely to end up as workless in the future. Like the assumption that the abused child becomes the adult abuser, unemployment is seen to be a psychological problem caused by a failure of appropriate parenting and poor socialisation. In some ways, this takes us back to the old idea of poverty as a moral failing (or in this instance a psychological failing) rather than as a social problem – the new therapeutic state is taking us backwards.

More HERE



Muslim hate speech at British universities

Israeli speakers have been barred from giving talks on campus but Muslim extremists are welcome

"The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (Fosis) has begun to set out a case for its support for hate speakers, utilising spurious "freedom of expression" arguments. It would have us believe that it holds a commitment to liberal ideology. Conversely, those who invite hate speakers on to campus are donning a cloak of hypocrisy and employing theoretical freedoms as a form of liberal protection. What is liberal about inviting proponents of homophobia, antisemitism and sexism to speak at universities? What exactly is so liberal about hosting advocates of racial and religious violence?

Fosis would have us believe that it is a defender of an absolute right to freedom of expression, yet one must critically analyse this assumption: Fosis clamps down on the respected historian Benny Morris, pushing for his Cambridge visit to be cancelled because controversial views he may hold, yet welcome Daud Abdullah (who signed the Istanbul declaration) with open arms. They say no to Douglas Murray at LSE and NUS conferences, but hello to Azzam Tamimi. Where is the logic? Moreover where does their new position fit in with their long-standing support of a no-platform policy when it comes to the BNP? In the light of Fosis's apparent paradigm shift, will the BNP be their next invitation? I will hazard a guess that the answer will be (rightfully) no. Yet, here, we see their true face and their clear hypocrisy: a rule for one and a different rule for the other.

The following quotes come from speakers under the invitation of student Islamic Societies across UK campuses. Feel free to enter them into Google or YouTube.

"They're all the same. The Jews don't have to be in Israel to be like this. It doesn't matter whether they're in New York, Houston, St Louis, London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester. They're all the same. They've monopolised everything: the Holocaust, God, money, interest, usury, the world economy, the media, political institutions." Another speaker has described how a husband has the right to apply "some type of physical force ... a very light beating" to his wife. "If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?" "I die for my homeland, I'm a martyr and I long to be a martyr." The list goes on.

Time and again, the hosts of these speakers hide behind a dog-eared copy of Mill's On Liberty, urgently locating the next quote that will legitimise the invitation. But for how long would they sit idly by if said speakers were directing their hate-fuelled abuse at Muslim students? If the above quotes were directed against Muslims and not Jews, homosexuals and women, would they still be screaming Mill from the rooftops, disingenuously preaching the right of freedom of expression? I certainly have my doubts. Clearly, the grossest of double standards are being employed.

Source

There is a new lot of postings by Chris Brand just up -- on his usual vastly "incorrect" themes of race, genes, IQ etc.





26 April, 2010

NHS: here's the unpleasant truth

As the election nears a consultant in a leading teaching hospital says voters have been shortchanged by huge rises in spending

Over the 40 plus years of my medical career there has been progressive evolution of clinical services. The management of cardiac surgery, stroke rehabilitation, transplantation, joint replacement and IVF have all developed at the behest of medical science. The costs of these services have been added to the "bread and butter" responsibilities of trauma, obstetrics, cancer and emergency surgery, and the management of medical disorders such as pneumonia and heart attacks. While paediatric workload has diminished thanks to better obstetric care, there has been a necessary explosion of services in geriatric medicine and mental health care.

In 1997 the NHS employed nearly 1 million people. It now employs 1.35 million. The cost of the service represents 9 per cent of GDP, an increase of 3 percentage points in real terms since the Millburn/Blair takeover of policy. However, the electorate has been short-changed.

Medical students of my generation knew that they were joining a profession where the time of day, or day of the week had no bearing on the level of service one was required to provide, whether in general practice or as a specialist. That concept is now to all intents and purposes dead, a casualty of the "new" contract for GPs in 2004 that allowed them to opt out of providing "out of hours" care, and of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD), which limits the number of hours hospital doctors can work in a week. As a result, there is a large and increasing cohort of young medics unfamiliar with the concept of continuous responsibility for a patient.

The Government has given in to European demands and reduced post graduate-training hours for intending specialists from 30,000 to 6,000 because of the working time directive. We have a generation of young consultants who have a narrow field of expertise – there are lens surgeons and retina surgeons where once there was an ophthalmic surgeon. Trainees are not conversant with the wider ramifications of medicine or surgery. Instead, they must cross refer patients within the hospital in the manner of the "pass the parcel". The knock-on effect in the acute specialities – medicine, surgery, paediatrics, orthopaedics – is that the emergency admission with a life-threatening problem may be managed by a committee of doctors rather than an experienced individual with a strategic overview. The cost of employing all the extra specialist consultants has more than doubled in the past ten years. However, the overall workload gain is probably less than 20 per cent

Furthermore, until 20 years ago the medical pillar at the gateway to our great hospitals was matched by a nursing pillar with a ward sister in charge of all aspects of a 24-bed ward, cleaning as well as the feeding and social management of the patients. These practical skills have been discarded thanks to the disastrous policy "Nursing 2000". For many Brits jobs in nursing and paramedical and technical components of the health service that require discipline, uniform, shift work at nights, weekends and during public holidays are beneath their dignity. Now our hospitals depend on the Philippines, Africa, the Far East and Eastern Europe, as well as a long resident West Indian population to nurse patients.

We all know that the elephant in the room at this general election is the figure 167 – the number of billions of public debt. Ignore the word billion, it clouds the issue. Note that political parties are bandying the figures 6 and 12 as their ostensible debt reduction plan. But if you are super-obese at 167kg shifting 10kg will make no difference to your health prospects. Radical measures are essential, despite protestations that healthcare will be sacrosanct. We have an ageing population, so we must not reduce services provided by people who work "face to patient".

But we have had 13 years of Labour policy designed to get more people on the public payroll and converted into Labour-voting slaves who have no interest in enhanced efficiency. We have assimilated a quarter of a million extras, literally supernumeraries, within the voluminous tent of the NHS.

Just outside the tent is the sand into which billions of taxpayers' money soaks without trace. Identification of these individuals is easy; look at the hospital telephone directory, and note how often the following descriptions occur: coordinator, commissioner, facilitator, compliance, liaison, outreach, project, regulator, controller. All of these staff require computers, salaries, paid holidays and final-year pensions. Look too at the Personnel, i.e. "Human Resources" Department. A five- page pro forma to apply for a parking permit? A senior female consultant asked by a 22-year-old clerk to produce her passport in order to identify herself before starting work at a new hospital? This is the reality of modern hospital bureaucracy.

Ask any experienced consultant whether the employees described above expedite or delay patient care?

A responsible government must initiate a thorough review of the financial efficiency of the NHS by senior clinicians. The moral responsibility of running the NHS rests with those who know what treatment and care can be provided with the resources determined by ministers. We will accept that responsibility because someone has to lay out in front of society what is being spent in its name. To the current annual bill must be added the cost of the Private Finance Initiative, an enormous confidence trick played on the taxpayer, and the pension expectations of the tens of thousands of NHS staff.

Young voters have a vital role in determining policy at this election. Whereas older voters, employed or often not, will vote for a "free" health service and continuing pensions, the demographic reality is that none of this money is stacked up in a bank account. It will only come from increased taxation on the declining percentage of working, i.e. economically active, people and will directly impinge on education costs and therefore education standards in the next 25 years.

Politicians cannot continue to be economical with the truth. We treat all-comers, from malnourished infants of economic migrants to octogenarians seeking care at the end of a long hard life. We do our best, and we need a rapid clear-out of the non-essential bureaucracy which is slowing patient care and diverting funds needed for the care and cure of sick citizens.

SOURCE



Britain surrenders to illegal immigrants

UK home to 1 million illegal immigrants

THE government is allowing illegal immigrants and asylum seekers to stay in the country because it fails to send staff to one in five appeal hearings.

Figures obtained under freedom of information (FoI) laws show that Home Office officials, who are supposed to defend decisions on asylum and immigration, failed to show up for 34,627 appeals last year, more than double the 2006 figure of 15,272.

Half of these hearings resulted in a victory for the appellant, up from just over a third two years ago. Many led to people staying who had been refused the right to remain.

The failure of the Home Office to send officials to fight its case was described as “inexcusable” by Chris Grayling, the Conservative shadow home secretary.

Grayling said: “It’s absolutely inexcusable for people who are in Britain illegally to avoid deportation simply because of Home Office incompetence. This has really got to be sorted out.”

It undermines claims by ministers that they have secured Britain’s borders. This month Alan Johnson, the home secretary, defended the government’s record and accused the Liberal Democrats of being inept on the issue.

Last week reporters spent two days at Taylor House in Islington, north London, one of the country’s busiest asylum centres.

On one day, 24 out of the 26 hearings went ahead without a Home Office presenting officer. On a second day the figures were 21 out of 26 unattended. Last year there were 171,000 such hearings nationwide.

A judge who was hearing the case at Taylor House of a Nigerian student fighting for the right to stay told her: “It is not my job to step into the shoes of the secretary of state and cross-examine you, but I may now be forced to do that.”

The Home Office also failed to attend an asylum appeal at the tribunal in London brought by the 19-year-old son of a former Iraqi intelligence officer who had worked for Saddam Hussein.

The teenager, who had been in Britain since 2007, claimed his life would be in danger if he had to return to Iraq. This is despite a previous Home Office decision that the children of former Ba’ath party officials were not at risk.

Last week the case of Zulfar Hussain, a paedophile who won the right to stay in Britain after claiming his human rights would be breached if he was deported to his native Pakistan, drew criticism of the immigration appeal system.

The 48-year-old is soon to be freed after completing half of a five-year jail sentence for abducting and sexually exploiting two 15-year-old girls. Hussain plied his victims, who were living in care and described as vulnerable, with drugs and alcohol. The Home Office admitted in a letter accompanying the FoI request that staff shortages meant it could not supply officers for all cases.

Immigration lawyers say the “farcical” non-appearance by Home Office staff significantly improves their clients’ chances of victory and judges say it undermines justice.

Simon Harding, a barrister with the London chambers of 36 Bedford Row, said: “These are Alice in Wonderland courts and you will rarely see a Home Office officer. In practice what it means is that fewer people are getting deported.”

Adam Pipe, a barrister in Birmingham, said: “Yes, there are times when you think, great, there is no one here from the other side.”

In the absence of a Home Office representative the judge has to rely on a written bundle of evidence provided by the Home Office. Some judges have been forced to ask lawyers bringing the appeal effectively to cross-examine their own clients by raising points of clarification.

Fokrul Islam, of the Oldham law firm Lawmans, said: “It is a farce because I am clearly not going to ask a client a question which will harm their case.”

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, accepted that the government was not able to staff all the hearings. “As far as staffing goes, you do get peaks and troughs and sometimes there are shortages,” he said. “At the same time we are working through a huge backlog of cases. We always staff those cases where an individual is considered a threat to the public in some way.”

He added: “Often we choose not to fight a case because the circumstances of the appellant change.”

SOURCE



More than 7,000 British parents hit by truancy convictions as courts punish soaring levels of school absenteeism

More than 7,000 parents a year are being convicted over their children’s truancy, figures show. The Government’s own statistics have revealed absenteeism is reaching record levels. They show the number of parents prosecuted and sentenced for their children skipping school has soared fivefold in just seven years.

But critics have accused Labour of failing to get a grip on the underlying causes of truancy, including low levels of academic achievement and poor behaviour.

Since tough truancy sanctions were introduced in 2001, more than 32,500 parents have been convicted, with nearly 100 jailed for up to three months. Yet figures show that truancy is still rising, with it hitting a record high during the last school year when 67,000 children skipped lessons every day – an increase of nearly 2,000 on 2007-08.

The most recent figures, released by the Ministry of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal 9,506 parents were taken to court in 2008 for failing to ensure their children go to school. Of these, 7,291 were found guilty. The most common penalty was a fine of up to £2,500. A total of 391 were made to undertake community service, while 11 were immediately imprisoned. This compares with 2001, when just 1,961 were prosecuted and 1,595 found guilty.

Between 2001 and 2008, a total of 32,567 parents have been convicted. Figures for 2009, available in the autumn, are expected to show a continuation of the rising trend.

Figures released earlier this year by the Department for Children, Schools and Families show that in 2008-09, the truancy rate – the percentage of school registration sessions missed without permission from parents – rose to 1.05 per cent. This was up 4 per cent from 1.01 per cent in 2007/08.

It marks a 44 per cent rise since 1996-97, when the truancy rate was 0.73 per cent. Nick Gibb, Tory schools spokesman, said: ‘We need to address underlying causes of truancy – the fact that so many children still struggle with reading and poor discipline in schools fuels bullying.’

Ming Zhang, an education welfare officer from Kingston Council in Surrey, said: ‘What seems to be happening is councils are setting targets for the number of children they prosecute,’ he said. ‘I think this is dangerous. Performance should be based on the number of children in school and not the number of parents in court.’

Schools minister Vernon Coaker said a tougher approach had brought about the ‘slight rise’ in those punished for unauthorised absences.

SOURCE



British food fanatic praises McDonald's

The home of the Big Mac and fries has received plaudits from the unlikeliest of sources - Jamie Oliver. The champion of healthy eating heaped praise on McDonald's despite accusations that it is one of the driving forces behind the rising global tide of obesity and ill-health.

He said: 'McDonald's in the UK is very different to the U.S. model - the quality of the beef, they only sell free-range eggs, they only sell organic milk, their ethics and recycling is being improved and improved.

'And I can't even believe I'm telling you that McDonald's UK has come a long way, but actually, it probably puts quite a lot of gastropubs to shame, the amount of work they're doing in the back end.

'Also, they've just had their best commercial year in four years, so they're proving that being commercial and caring can work. Actually, it's the future.'

Oliver suggested the Government and schools could learn a lot of lessons from McDonald's. 'I gave a strategy for training dinner ladies in England that was totally ignored,' he said. 'The current one doesn't work.

'The current model of school dinners all served in one room with loads of subservient kids sitting in rows eating in an hour is very old-fashioned.

'It needs to be brought up to date and to reflect the businesses succeeding in this country right now, which frankly are Pret A Manger, McDonald's and a bit of old-fashioned dining.'

This a very different message to the one delivered by Oliver in 2005 while filming Jamie's School Dinners - a programme campaigning for better meals for pupils. At the time, he said: 'We're in a very important time right now, where we can connect kids with better food, and a knowledge of where the stuff comes from, in a really fun way.

'Or we can carry on being commercial and end up like America, which is extremely scary - where you've got McDonald's sponsoring canteens, where sugar drinks are bringing in revenue-and headteachers are making decisions based on a few quid that they should be getting from elsewhere.'

Oliver's praise for the fast-food giant follows fellow celebrity chef Marco Pierre White's decision to endorse products by Bernard Matthews - hitherto another byword for unhealthy eating.

Interviewed for the Mail on Sunday's Live magazine, Oliver stressed that his conversion to McDonald's does not mean he has given up the fight against obesity.

He has just fronted a TV series in the U.S. trying to improve the diet of that nation's children.

SOURCE



BBC lectures us incessantly on climate change. So why did their bosses make 68,000 domestic flights in two years?

Its viewers are frequently subjected to warnings about climate change. Yet the BBC has spent nearly £5million on tens of thousands of short-haul flights across Britain for its executives, staff and guests.

At a time when programmes regularly highlight the environmental impact of air travel, licence-fee payers have funded more than 68,000 internal trips over the past two years – an average of nearly 100 flights a day.

The BBC’s daily carbon footprint generated by the UK air trips is the equivalent of that produced by the average person in a year, say environmental experts.

Among the users of domestic flights was the BBC’s Deputy Director-General Mark Byford, who flew from Southampton to Edinburgh to watch an England-Scotland rugby match.

Mr Byford, who earns £471,000 a year, also took a flight from London to Manchester to attend the Open golf championship. The same journey would have taken three hours by train.

BBC Director-General Mark Thompson travelled on 16 internal flights. These included a flight to Newcastle from London to attend a Conservative Party reception, and a flight from London to Glasgow to attend a concert. The huge bill for internal flights came to light following a Freedom of Information request.

Critics are bound to question how the Corporation can justify spending such a large sum on short flights – especially in the light of the BBC’s most recent corporate responsibility report, which says: ‘Large organisations like the BBC are under increasing pressure to reduce environmental impacts, use resources more efficiently, and manage their operations in a more sustainable way. We are making progress in all of these areas.

‘We will continue to encourage staff to travel less, and use rail rather than air wherever that is feasible.’

Last night campaigners were also questioning why the BBC had lavished huge amounts on UK air travel at a time of job cuts and cutbacks in programme budgets.

The total cost to licence-fee payers of the 68,063 flights amounted to £4,686,850 between 2007 and 2009. Those who took the flights included BBC staff, freelance workers and guests.

A spokesman for Friends of the Earth said: ‘There’s no excuse for flying across the UK when there are greener alternatives such as travelling by train.

‘It’s vital that we slash carbon emissions from transport to meet the UK’s targets for tackling climate change, and this means changing the way we travel.’

Among the reasons cited for taking flights were attending training days, TV and radio festivals and travelling to meetings.

One of the biggest users of domestic flights among the corporation’s executive directors was Deputy Director-General Mark Byford, who has overall responsibility for journalism and sport.

In March 2008, Mr Byford flew from Southampton – the airport closest to his Winchester home – to Edinburgh to watch a Scotland-England rugby match. On the same trip he also incurred £26 worth of taxi fares to get to and from the airport, a bill picked up by the licence-fee payer. In July that year he flew from London to Manchester to attend the Open golf championship at Royal Birkdale. In September Mr Byford flew to Manchester again to attend the Labour Party Conference. He took 23 domestic flights over the two-year period.

Other top executives made dozens of short-haul flights, including director general Mark Thompson and finance chief Zarin Patel.

Mr Thompson, who earns £834,000 a year, took 16 internal flights, including flying to Newcastle for the Conservative Party reception and to Glasgow for the ‘opening of season for Scottish Symphony Orchestra’.

Ms Patel, who earns £429,000, took at least 10 domestic flights to attend meetings with finance and production staff in Glasgow.

And Timothy Davie, who as the director of audio and music earns £403,000, took 18 internal flights including to attend the Edinburgh Festival last year and a radio festival in Glasgow.

Last night Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said the flights were a needless waste of money. He said: ‘Some BBC staff seem to be accustomed to travelling five star, but this kind of luxury simply can’t go on.

‘Taking a train is almost always far more cost-effective than domestic flights, and a plane simply isn’t necessary to reach most parts of the country other than Northern Ireland.’

Last night a BBC spokeswoman defended its use of domestic air travel. She said the BBC was introducing video conference facilities to cut down on the need to travel to meetings and that rail travel was its ‘preferred mode of transport within England’.

‘We do consider our environmental impact, but obviously we also have to consider value for money for the licence-fee payer. It remains the case that domestic flights are sometimes the cheapest and most time-efficient means for transport.’

She defended Mr Byford’s use of flights to attend the rugby match, saying: ‘His diary is extremely busy and so if he got the train up [from Southampton] it would take eight hours. He could well have had other things to do for the BBC on that day.

‘Just because it was a Saturday it wouldn’t necessarily mean he didn’t have other things to do.’

The BBC executives took their flights even though they have the use of chauffeur-driven cars – funded by the licence fee.

Mr Thompson has a VW Phaeton 3.0TDi V6 which has cost the licence payer £143,000 during the past two years. Mr Byford has a Lexus GS which has cost £133,000 during the same period.

It has previously been revealed that Mr Byford gets his car to pick him up from Waterloo Station every day after he commutes from Winchester to London. The car then drives him the six miles to and from his office at White City in West London.

SOURCE





25 April, 2010

Secret NHS cuts axe thousands of medics

Hospitals across England are planning to shed at least 650 doctors and 2,000 nurses under new cost-cutting plans

HUNDREDS of doctors and thousands of nurses will lose their jobs over the next five years under secret cost-cutting plans.

The cuts to clinical staff, exposed in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, undermine Labour’s election pledge to protect services.

Half of all hospitals that responded to the FoI requests said they were planning to cut the number of doctors and nurses. Two-thirds also said they would cut the number of hospital beds.

Ministers have always insisted that the planned efficiency savings could be achieved by cutting waste and bureaucracy alone.

Andy Burnham, the health secretary, said last week: “Our savings proposals are not contingent upon redundancies.” However, the survey of English hospital trusts, conducted by the Conservatives, reveals that over the next parliament there will be a net loss of at least 650 doctors and 2,000 nurses.

The figures are based on responses from 46 out of a total of 169 hospital trusts, so the true scale of planned clinical job losses is likely to be higher.

The responses to the FoI requests also disclose that at least 1,500 beds will be lost in English hospitals.

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: “Gordon Brown promised voters that he would protect the National Health Service and protect frontline services. But these figures reveal that Labour is planning secret cuts. They will cut the number of nurses, the number of doctors and the number of hospital beds. It does not get more frontline than that.”

Lansley insisted the Tories would be in a better position to guarantee clinical services because of their commitment to ring-fence health spending.

However, while both parties say they will protect NHS spending, jobs are at risk because inflation in healthcare is much higher than in the ordinary economy.

The most severe cuts are those at the Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals Trust, which includes the City, Sandwell and Rowley Regis hospitals. The trust revealed it was cutting 23% of beds, 343 nurses and 62 doctors. A spokesman said this was part of a strategy of treating patients “in the community”.

Over the next five years the University Hospital of North Staffordshire plans to shed 239 nurses and 84 doctors. The hospital will also cut 292 beds, or one in five, of its total capacity.

The trust said it had a restructuring programme that “involves moving some inpatient and outpatient services into community settings and staff will be moving with these services”.

The Imperial College Trust, which includes the Charing Cross and Hammersmith hospitals in west London, revealed that it planned to cut 265 nurses and 49 doctors. The trust would not comment on the reasons for the cuts, citing election “purdah”, but a spokesman refused to deny that frontline services could be hit.

Other trusts which revealed plans to reduce staff numbers included Nottingham University Hospitals, North Lincolnshire and Goole, Doncaster and Bassetlaw, and Co Durham and Darlington.

The Conservatives have obtained further details of the job cuts being planned by one trust, Hull and East Yorkshire. A leaked presentation showed it was anticipating a 4% cut in consultants and a 10% cut in midwives.

NHS West Midlands, the only regional health authority to provide figures, said that it planned to cut 1,000 nursing jobs.

Although some hospitals indicated that they planned to recruit doctors and nurses, these expansion plans were more than offset by cuts forecast by other trusts.

The Conservatives claim to have identified almost £5 billion of stealth cuts Labour is planning to inflict on the NHS. These include a £700m cut to the capital budget and £215m squeeze because of the planned National Insurance rises.

Last week The Sunday Times disclosed internal NHS documents which showed 120,000 managers will go by 2014 and that three of the country’s 10 strategic health authorities plan to reduce staff numbers by an average of 8.7%. If similar cuts are imposed across the NHS, 120,000 jobs will be lost.

Lansley said the reductions in hospital staff could not be excused by “restructuring” or “moving care into the community”. He added: “There is no evidence that extra staff are being recruited to replace these roles in the community. In fact the number of district nurses has gone down. The big increases in primary care trust staffing are coming in administration not frontline workers.

“Under Labour the number of managers has risen five times faster than the number of nurses. Our NHS has been weighed down by a bloated bureaucracy which means precious resources aren’t being spent on helping patients.

“We will cut bureaucracy by a third and we will make sure that frontline patient care comes first.”

SOURCE



Dying British cancer patients are denied approved drugs

HUNDREDS of patients may have been left to die without access to life-prolonging medication, despite the drugs being approved by the government.

Now figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that a cancer patient’s chances of overruling health authorities who deny them access to drugs depends on where they live.

Some NHS trusts, such as Torbay in Devon and Salford in Manchester, granted all appeals while in others, such as Kingston in southwest London, only 7% were granted. In about one-third of trusts, fewer than half of the requests for drugs that can cost thousands of pounds a month were approved.

Access to cancer drugs has become an election issue, with the Conservatives saying they will ensure the National Health Service directs £200m more into supplying new drugs. The money will come from what the health service would otherwise have had to pay to meet Labour’s hike in National Insurance, which the Tories have said they would partially reverse.

The drugs concerned have all been approved by the government’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice). However, each of 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) in England is allowed to use its own interpretation of Nice’s regulations.

In some cases patients who have already had two courses of chemotherapy are not allowed the drugs; in other cases they must have tried cheaper alternatives before being eligible. Those who do not meet the conditions must appeal to an “exceptional case” panel.

Widespread variation in attitudes between health trusts emerged in research to be published in Health Insurance magazine. It asked how many “exceptional-case funding requests” for cancer were received by trusts in 2009.

It named five drugs, including Rituxan for leukaemia; Tarceva for lung cancer treatment and Revamid for blood cancer.

All such appeals were granted by 17 healthcare trusts, with the areas benefiting ranging from Walsall and Manchester, to Torbay and Suffolk. However, Kingston and Northamptonshire refused most of the appeals made to them.

Forty-one of 122 primary care trusts that responded granted fewer than half requests. The figures present an incomplete picture because some trusts may prescribe medicines without the need for patients to appeal. Critics, however, say they still show unacceptably wide variations in practice.

Specialists also complain that the NHS trust officials who decide whether or not to grant the appeals are rarely experts in the disease, so they help to create the wide discrepancies. Karol Sikora, a cancer specialist at Hammersmith hospital, west London, said his department has a wallchart that marks both sympathetic and unhelpful PCTs. “You find yourself talking to office temps and all sorts of unlikely people who are apparently making these life-or-death decisions,” said Sikora.

Malcolm Cole, 71, a former computer manager from Fulbrook, Oxfordshire, was successful. He suffers from the blood cancer multiple myeloma and owes his survival to Revamid, which costs £4,200 for each month’s supply. “My specialist put me into a trial for it, and the response was so good it gave me the strength to successfully battle the local health trust,” he said.

Last week Sandra Hatton, 56, a former special needs teacher from Widnes, Cheshire, who has leukaemia, was told she could continue having Sprycel which, she said, has “given me my life back”.

The Department of Health said: “Primary care trusts are legally required to fund treatments approved by Nice, subject to any criteria Nice specifies. In the absence of Nice guidance, PCTs are responsible for funding decisions based on the needs of their local population.”

SOURCE



British science boss wants funding restricted to the existing scientific establishment

Which would be a recipe for complete scientific inertia but very cosy. To encourage innovation, the opposite is needed. Funding should principally be directed towards testing new ideas. Very few scientists have more than one new idea in their lifetime and many do not have even one. They just replough well-worn furrows. The conformity over the wildly speculative global warming theory shows that pressures not to think outside establishment dogma are already alarmingly strong

Public funding of science should become more elitist, says the Nobel laureate nominated as next head of Britain’s national academy of science.

Sir Paul Nurse, named yesterday as the only candidate to succeed Lord Rees of Ludlow as President of the Royal Society, called for reform of the £3.2 billion budget to give more support to the few scientists who can “really move the needle” by making major discoveries.

In an interview with The Times, the geneticist, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2001 and is currently president of the Rockefeller University in New York, said that funders should identify 100 to 150 excellent scientists in all fields, who would get generous long-term support to pursue their interests.

The amount of funding would vary from field to field, and the elite would be assessed for five to seven years to ensure that they still deserved their status. Some money would still have to be available for other scientists to apply for grants to support individual projects, he said.

“I am actually a complete non-elitist in many aspects of my life, including science education up to a certain age, but when it comes to research I am really pretty elitist,” Sir Paul said. “There are not all that many people who can really move the needle.

“It is an interesting paradox, because we have quite a lot of people in the scientific endeavour, but not so many of them are people who are moving things significantly forward. Much of the work is worthybut the question is, do we have enough at that top end who make real discoveries? Are we attracting enough people there, and are we resourcing them enough?

“I think there has probably been too much attention paid to keeping the whole endeavour going in a sensible way, and not enough focus on how you can identify the very, very best, and make sure that they really do perform to their best ability.

“I think this has got to be solved really by having support systems that can reflect the fact that some people are very, very good and we should support them while they are very, very good.

“You need a combination of special systems that attract and support those who are excellent, and rigorous reviews so that when they cease to be excellent, as many often are, they don’t just hang on to those resources ... they can fit into the more general system.”

Sir Paul is a former chief executive of Cancer Research UK. The Royal Society confirmed yesterday that he was its chosen candidate and will ballot its 1,314 fellows to support his nomination.

SOURCE



In Britain, Immigration is an Issue Fit for Whispers

In a general election where the unexpected surge of the Liberal Democrats has put all the usual calculations about the contest between Labour and the Conservatives in flux, there has been a morbid familiarity to the campaign of one party that cannot hope to be part of the jockeying for power many pundits foresee after the ballots are cast on May 6.

The British National Party, inheritor of the ideological mantle of Oswald Mosley’s Union of Fascists in the 1930s, can realistically hope to win only one London-area constituency among the 650 House of Commons seats — if even that. But opinion polls suggest that the party will attract significantly more of the popular vote than the seven-tenths of 1 percent it won in 2005.

The party’s rise, such as it may be, can be traced to the same issue — the rapid increase in nonwhite immigration, particularly from the Muslim world — that has recently empowered far-right parties across Europe, notably in France. Britain’s counterpart to Jean-Marie Le Pen, the demagogic French politician who reached a runoff for the presidency in 2002, is Nick Griffin, a soberly suited, 51-year-old Cambridge-educated graduate in history and law.

Mr. Griffin is a fringe politician. But in this election, more than in any other in memory, popular anxiety about the rapid rise in immigration in the 13 years of Labour rule is the ghost at the banquet. It is a political reality strong enough, according to opinion polls, to influence votes in dozens of constituencies, but one that the major parties can afford to address only in the most modulated of keys, and then, usually, only when others raise it on the campaign trail.

To understand that, it is enough to recall Enoch Powell. Forty-two years ago, Mr. Powell, a prominent Conservative, made a speech saying Britain “had to be mad” to admit 50,000 immigrants a year, mostly then from British islands in the Caribbean. He likened the consequences to the “tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic,” the 1968 race riots in America. A classicist, he indulged his passion for ancient history. “I am filled with foreboding,” he said. “Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’ ”

Mr. Powell was promptly sacked from the Conservatives’ shadow cabinet; he left the party and wandered in the political shadows until his death in 1998. His “rivers of blood” speech has stood ever since as a warning to mainstream politicians of the fate of those who raise the immigration issue with overwrought language, particularly with a racist tinge. In 2005, many people thought Michael Howard, then the Conservative leader, crossed the line with his tough language on immigration, further dooming his party to its third straight loss to Labour.

Small wonder, then, that the prime ministerial contenders trod warily when a nonwhite woman in the audience raised the issue at the second of three televised election debates on Thursday.

To nobody’s surprise, each of the three emphasized the need to curb migrant inflows. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat, urged an amnesty for the million or so illegal immigrants estimated to have lived in Britain for 10 years or more, to “get them out of the hands of criminal gangs,” balanced by stricter border controls; Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for Labour, said new identity cards for foreign residents and a points system for immigration applicants had begun to cut the numbers; David Cameron, the Conservative, advocated a cap on entrants from outside the European Union, “to get it down radically.”

But their competing policies were less notable than the care the three took to avoid any shade of prejudice. “The first thing to say,” Mr. Cameron said, “is that we have benefited from immigration; and people who come here and live legally, we should be incredibly warm and welcoming and hospitable and build a strong and integrated country. I think it’s really important to say that, first up.”

One party leader not invited to the debates was Mr. Griffin, though he wrenched the debate back down to street level on Friday when he unveiled the B.N.P.’s election manifesto. It called for “absolutely no further immigration from any Muslim countries, as it presents one of the most deadly threats to the survival of our nation.” Mr. Griffin said Britain was “full up,” and it was time to “close the doors.”

What has given the issue new political weight is the scale of immigration during Labour rule. Extrapolations from government figures suggest that looser regulations adopted in Tony Blair’s early years as prime minister have led to a net inward migration of about two million people since 1997, with a peak of 330,000 in 2007. Many new arrivals have come legally from East European nations in the European Union, notably Poland. But by far the most non-Europeans have been Muslims, who historically have been slower to assimilate than other immigrants.

More HERE



In hiding, the British mother accused of abuse for cuddling her child

A mother alleged to have 'emotionally abused' her daughter by telling her she was born by caesarean has fled to Ireland with the child. Fearing that social workers would take her daughter away, Shahnaz Malik smuggled five-year-old Amaani out of the country.

After allegations that included Mrs Malik cuddling Amaani for too long while dropping her off at nursery, social services placed the little girl on a 'child protection plan' and scheduled a child mental health assessment. But using tickets booked under assumed names, Mrs Malik and her daughter caught a ferry to Ireland from a Welsh port.

Police arrested her husband for obstructing their investigation, and raided their Birmingham home in the hunt for Amaani. Detectives even removed toothbrushes from their home to obtain DNA, in case the pair had been murdered.

Mrs Malik, who has a masters degree in social policy and has lived in Britain all her life, plans to stay in Ireland with her daughter until the family can raise enough money to start a new life in Dubai, out of the reach of the UK social services. They own four properties in Birmingham which they plan to rent out.

At her Irish hotel, Mrs Malik said she fled the UK because she feared losing her daughter. She added: 'Once social services are on to you it's a complete nightmare and no matter what you do you are deemed a bad parent. If your child is full of beans or just sitting there quietly, it is your fault.

'Amaani was born premature so we've always been protective of her and would do anything to keep her with us. 'Ideally we'd like to get the matter resolved and return home, but we know that isn't going to happen.'

Social services became involved after a dispute between the family and a private nursery. Nursery staff told social workers that Amaani had used a swear word, bit her nails, told them she was delivered by caesarean and that they had seen Mrs Malik cuddle her for up to ten minutes.

In January, Birmingham city council notified the family that Amaani was subject to a child protection plan for 'emotional abuse'. Further meetings were arranged, including a mental health assessment for Amaani a month later.

But fearing that her daughter would be taken away, Mrs Malik went into hiding at a friend's house, and social workers contacted police.

After her husband Vijay Bansal, 42, was arrested at their home, Mrs Malik came out of hiding, but before social workers could meet the family they drove to Wales and boarded a ferry as foot passengers to Ireland.

Mr Bansal, an IT consultant, has returned to Birmingham to deal with their properties, but makes regular trips to Ireland.

Mrs Malik said: 'It's been really tough on Amaani as she has left all her family and friends. We hope to leave for Dubai soon. 'We have been there on holiday and really enjoyed it. There's plenty of work out there for my husband and we have friends there too. 'The only problem is having to remortgage our properties so we can have a large deposit to satisfy the Dubai authorities we are able to settle there.'

She added: 'I told Amaani that she was cut from mummy's tummy as I wanted her to be informed, but not in a graphic way. 'As for the hugging - no mother would not comfort their child if they were screaming.'

The family are being supported by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who campaigns against abuses in the family courts. He said: 'This whole case is madness. There is no reason for the state to be involved in this little girl's life in this way.'

A spokesman for West Midlands Police confirmed that Mrs Malik and her daughter were investigated in a suspected missing persons case.

Colin Tucker, Birmingham city council's director for children's social care, said: 'It can be a case of you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. 'People want to portray things as black and white but the reality in social care is that we are dealing with very complex situations.'

SOURCE



Genetics 'not to blame for obese kids'

This claim runs against a lot of other evidence. There are plenty of sex-linked genes and the findings below may simply indicate that some genes responsible for obesity are among them

CHILDREN become obese because of the influence of their same-sex parent, not as a result of genetics, a new study by British scientists claims.

Scientists from Peninsula Medical School at the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth say if a young girl has an overweight mother she is more likely to become obese, with the same applying to boys and their fathers. The findings suggest that it is behavioural rather than genetic factors that have a greater influence in determining whether children become obese.

According to the study of 226 British families, the scientists found that obese mums were 10 times more likely to have obese daughters. Obese dads were also six times more likely to have an obese son.

However, the same trend did not exist between mums and their sons and fathers and daughters.

"Any genetic link between obese parents and their children would be indiscriminate of gender," the study's director Professor Terry Wilkin said. "The clearly defined gender-assortative pattern which our research has uncovered is an exciting one because it points towards behavioural factors at work in childhood obesity."

Prof Wilkin said the findings could dramatically affect government policies on dealing with childhood obesity and its current focus on an apparent genetic link.

"Money and resources have focused on children over the past decade in the belief that obese children become obese adults and that prevention of obesity in children will solve the problem in adulthood," he said.

"(The study's) evidence supports the opposite hypothesis - that children are becoming obese due to the influence of their same-sex parents and that we will need to focus on changing the behaviour of the adult if we want to combat obesity in the child."

Source



British watchdog under fire as number of IVF blunders soars

The HFEA are just bureaucratic animals. They were too busy trying to "get" Britain's most successful IVF doctor -- Taranissi. They hated him because his was a private clinic and they did their damnedest to close him down -- with help from the BBC. But he eventually beat them in the courts and they finally gave up their attack on him in Sept., 2008. The BBC paid him nearly a million for libelling him in June last year. Doing anything useful is beyond the HFEA. It would be interesting to know how many of the errors below were made at government hospitals. Most of them, I'm betting

The number of blunders made at IVF clinics has nearly doubled in the past 12 months. The serious mistakes, which affect couples desperate for children, include cases where embryos have been lost or placed in the wrong woman, or incidents where eggs have been fertilised with the wrong sperm.

Figures released by the IVF watchdog reveal the number of reported incidents increased from 182 in 2007-08 to 334 in 2008-09, prompting calls for it to get tougher on failing units.

The figures do not show which fertility clinics were the worst-performing, but include centres throughout England and Wales where 50,000 IVF procedures took place in the past year.

A leading embryologist said the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was not adequately enforcing the rules on fertility treatment.

Sammy Lee, from University College London, said: ‘I think the key failure of the HFEA is that when they ask clinics to put in special procedures, they’re not enforcing them. ‘It’s important that when you’ve identified a weakness in a procedure, you quickly enforce it, and don’t wait a year to do so.’

The figures include all reported incidents and near misses to the HFEA during 2008-09. Examples include fridges containing eggs being switched off accidentally, or consent forms not being signed by two clinicians, which is against the rules.

The blunders are revealed on Donal MacIntyre’s BBC Radio 5 Live show tonight.

The programme features an interview with one woman, identified only as Clare, who was told by clinicians at the University of Wales IVF clinic in Cardiff that two of her remaining three embryos created during her first cycle of fertility treatment had been ‘lost’.

She says the only explanation staff could offer was that they may have ‘slipped off the straw’ during the freezing process.

Clare, who had been trying for a baby for seven years with her partner Gareth before beginning treatment at the clinic in 2008, said: ‘I was waiting to go in and have a transfer and they said I only had one embryo remaining – the other two had gone missing. Those were two potential babies.’

The clinic said it would not comment on individual cases but its overall rate of frozen embryo recovery was ‘high’ by international standards.

Lawyer Guy Forster, who is representing Clare and who has dealt with similar cases in the UK in the past year, called the situation ‘deeply disturbing’.

The HFEA said it did not accept it needed reform. A spokesman said: ‘In embryology, as in all areas of clinical care, it is not possible to guarantee 100 per cent success.’

Source



The nine-bin nightmare in Britain: Families forced to follow green zealots' new recycling diktats

Families are facing a nightmare future of recycling confusion. In a regime set to spread across the country, residents are being forced to juggle an astonishing nine separate bins.

There has already been a storm of protest with warnings that the scheme is too complex and homes simply don't have the space to deal with the myriad bins, bags and boxes.

The containers include a silver slopbucket for food waste, which is then tipped in to a larger, green outdoor food bin, a pink bag for plastic bottles, a green bag for cardboard, and a white bag for clothing and textiles.

Paper and magazines go in blue bags, garden waste in a wheelie bin with a brown lid, while glass, foil, tins and empty aerosols should go in a blue box, with a grey wheelie bin for non-recyclable waste.

The strict regulations have been introduced as councils come under growing pressure to cut the amount of household rubbish they send to landfill. However, they go far beyond anything previously expected from householders and families.

Retired teacher Sylvia Butler is already being forced to follow the new rules. She said: 'I'm all for recycling and used to help educate the kids about it during my geography classes but expecting us to cope with nine different bins and bags is asking too much.'

Pressure on councils to enforce recycling schemes includes rising taxes on everything they send to landfill and the threat of European Union fines if they fail to hit EU targets from 2013 onwards.

Compulsory recycling is commonly enforced by bin police who can impose £100 on-the-spot fines for breaches like overfilled wheelie bins, extra rubbish left out, or bins put out at the wrong time. If people do not pay the fines, they can be taken to court, where they face increased penalties of £1,000 and criminal records.

Officials in Newcastle-under-Lyme in North Staffordshire anticipated trouble when they introduced the nine-bin system last month. They had to publish step-by-step instructions on how to fold down a cardboard box so that it fits into the green bag.

The council also put a film on its web-site in which a recycling officer demonstrates how to put a tenth container - a biodegradable liner - into the slopbucket.

Mrs Butler, 58, who is secretary of her local residents' association in Newcastle and a former councillor, said the terrace homes in her street had no gardens, yet were expected to accommodate bulky bins for garden waste.

Mrs Butler, who lives with husband Nick, 59, a retired lab worker, said: 'I have had to take my brown bin down to my allotment - there simply isn't room in my back yard to house it.'

Under the previous recycling system in the borough, householders had to juggle with the five containers that have become common in compulsory recycling and fortnightly collection schemes throughout the country.

The new system was introduced by the local council to help boost recycling rates from 26 per cent in 2008 to a target of 50 per cent by 2015.

It means only food waste is now taken each week. All other rubbish has to be stored for a fortnight before it is collected.

Mrs Butler said that whereas previously, only one wagon would collect their recycling, now up to three different lorries and crews do the job.

Samantha Dudley, 34, an office administrator from Newcastle, said recycling bags and their contents blowing in the street were a 'constant problem'. She said: 'This scheme is supposed to increase recycling but the irony is it is creating more rubbish.

'We are on high ground and although you can tie the plastic bags up, the ones full of plastic bottles simply blow away up the street - even when they are full - if they are not weighed down.'

She added: 'I'm used to organising things with two children but even I find juggling nine different recycling bags and bins difficult. I dread to think how elderly people get on.'

Around half the country now has fortnightly collection systems imposed by town halls that prefer to compel their residents to carry out complex recycling than either organise recycling themselves in waste plants or absorb the cost of landfill taxes.

A report for the Environment Department last week revealed that the burning of household rubbish by those trying to evade recycling rules has now become the greatest source of highly poisonous and cancer-causing dioxins in the environment.

Binmen also frequently refuse to take rubbish containers they view as contaminated. Last week in Andover in Hampshire dustmen refused to take away a bin they said was contaminated with a handful of fruit pips.

A spokesman for Newcastle-under-Lyme council, which is ruled by a coalition of Tories and Liberal Democrats, said: 'If residents report litter problems to us our crews will pick it up that day.'

Some Tory-controlled authorities have been among the cheerleaders for compulsory recycling and fortnightly collections despite criticism from their own party's shadow ministers who have accused Labour of forcing councils to behave like 'bin bullies'.

A number of Tory councils are expected to continue to be among the front-runners in enforcing recycling.

SOURCE



Climategate Investigation Only Fuels Controversy

If the University of East Anglia report set up to investigate the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was meant to put the Climategate controversy to rest in time for Earth Day, it failed spectacularly.

The panel was led by Ernest Oxburgh, who happens to be the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. Carbon capture and storage is an industry that definitely wouldn’t suffer should CO2 limits be imposed. Also, Oxburgh’s involvement with the wind-energy industry raises further conflict of interest questions. With this in mind, the lack of depth into which the investigation went and the complete acquittal the panel gave the CRU, is not at all surprising.

The supposed investigation lasted a mere three weeks and was only five pages in length. Steve McIntyre, a leading critic of the IPCC report and editor of the Climate Audit blog, pointed out that the panel thought it only regrettable—and in no way acknowledged any sort of cover-up– that key facts and figures were tucked away in obscure scientific journals and omitted from the IPCC report. This is significant because, as he put it, IPCC presentations—and not the journals– “are how the climate science community speaks to the world.” Apparently, these scientists did not want the world to understand that their data did not support their theory. At least according to the well-known “climate-gate” emails which show that the scientists involved saw that these facts would “dilute the message.”

McIntyre isn’t the only one who is not sold by this so-called investigation. The Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Myron Ebel, said, “They don’t even make a minimal effort to rebut the obvious appearance of widespread data manipulation, suppression of dissenting research through improper means and intentional avoidance of complying with Freedom of Information requests.” In the scientific community, where transparency and the ability to replicate results are everything, these charges are severe. And unfortunately, the Obama administration is calling for harmful regulations based upon this faulty science.

The same week the panel gave the CRU a free pass, President Obama made the claim to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board that pending climate legislation from the left is good for business. The board would have been good to tell him otherwise. Spain and other European countries that have tried regulating CO2 emissions have suffered drastic economic results. Heritage experts have done the number-crunching and their results show Obama’s statement to be blatantly false. While the figures for the final bill would be slightly different than those calculated by Heritage experts for the Boxer-Kerry legislation, if CO2 emissions or renewable fuel standards legislation was enacted, you could count on trillions of dollars of losses in U.S. GDP, job losses in excess of a million, and trillions of dollars worth of higher energy costs.

If the American people are going to have to bear the consequences of this bill in a time of economic hardship, we should continue to demand a true investigation into the—shoddy at best, deceptive at worst—findings of the CRU. Allowing those that stand to profit from CO2 regulation to be the ones to investigate the science is like having a polar bear guard the seals.

SOURCE





24 April, 2010

"Equality" of treatment is just an NHS myth

Poor men are significantly less likely to get some prostate cancer treatments than their more affluent neighbours, a new study has found. They were 26 per cent less likely to have radiotherapy and 52 per cent less likely to have radical surgery.

The differences remained even when other factors such as age and stage of their disease were taken into account. Researchers warned that more needs to be done to understand the disparity in care.

More than 37,000 men a year are diagnosed with prostate cancer and one in three will eventually die from the disease.

The study looked at data on 35,171 men with the cancer between 1995 and 2006. Dr Georgios Lyratzopoulos, of the University of Cambridge, who led the study, said: "There are two possible reasons why men from less well off backgrounds do not get the same treatment.

"Firstly, they have a higher degree of other illnesses, which means having radiotherapy or surgery may put them at greater risk.

"Also, the way these people process information about the pros and cons of various treatments may be different from those higher up the social ladder.”

He added: "Prostate cancer is a complex disease and it is not easy even for doctors to tell whether radiotherapy, surgery or another treatment is best for any particular patient.”

The findings are published online in the British Medical Journal.

SOURCE



St George parade through London revived



A certain element of battiness about the details but battiness is also English

The revival of a St George’s Day parade through the City of London for the first time in four centuries was a vision of traditional Englishness. There was a man dressed as St George with a papier-maché dragon on his helmet, a marching band, a lamb and an all-terrain vehicle designed by an Austrian arms company that made guns for the Third Reich.

The Pinzgauer truck, which originated in Austria but is now made in England, was invited to take up the rear of the procession by the Worshipful Company of Armourers & Brasiers, a City guild that last performed such a parade in 1585.

It also enlisted the help of the Band of The Parachute Regiment, the Regimental Colour Party and Pegasus, a Shetland pony that serves as a regimental mascot.

The civilian contingent included a professional jouster dressed as St George mounted on a horse, some knights and a lamb in a crib on wheels.

The lamb, which plays a symbolic part in the legend, proved to be the main draw for the crowds who turned out to see the parade. There was a tussle over its name. Christopher Waite, clerk of the company, said that she was called “Annie”, because she was an orphan. Karen Archer, 27, who portrayed the maiden apocryphally saved by St George, said that they had privately renamed her “Mint Sauce”....

Tom Tudor-Pole, a freeman of the Armourer’s Company and regimental jeweller for The Parachute Regiment, said that he organised the parade to reclaim England’s patron saint for ordinary English people.

“St George has been hijacked by the right wing,” he said. “I wanted to bring him back because he’s the patron saint of our Armed Forces and many other countries.“Next year we hope that all regiments will have similar events around the country to raise money for charity.”

Mr Tudor-Pole also constructed the mobile crib that carried the lamb. “It’s made of English oak with copper bars and a silver plaque to St George. We call it the lamb-bourghini.”

The procession travelled in a circular route from Armourer’s Hall in Coleman Street via St Paul’s Cathedral, where Company members traditionally paid tribute to a statue of St George. The statue no longer exists.

The English legend of St George is wildly divergent from an older story about a Christian soldier in the Roman army who was tortured and killed for refusing to renounce his faith.

One version of the English myth is that a dragon terrorises a kingdom and is appeased only as long as the people feed it their sheep. When the last sheep is eaten, the people send their children, chosen by lot. When it falls upon the Princess to be sacrificed, St George happens to be passing and mortally wounds the dragon. He then offers to kill the dragon if the kingdom converts to Christianity. The subjects find faith, and everyone but the dragon lives happily ever after.

SOURCE





23 April, 2010

Dying British boy, 8, was denied ambulance because he 'wasn't poorly enough'

A dying schoolboy was refused an ambulance by 999 operators who said he was not ill enough. Louis Austin, eight, was passed on to an out-of-hours doctor who wrongly diagnosed swine flu over the phone and prescribed Tamiflu.

He died two days later after kidney failure caused by undiagnosed diabetes. Yesterday an inquest heard that he would have had at least a 95 per cent chance of surviving if he had been taken to hospital immediately.

Coroner Joanne Kearsley returned a verdict of death by natural causes contributed to by neglect. She said the North West Ambulance Service was culpable and that ‘assumptions and judgments’ had been made during phone calls with the family.

Louis’s mother Melanie said after the verdict: ‘It’s been horrible hearing the way they just passed things over and they diagnosed swine flu even though he didn’t have all the symptoms. 'I was ready to take Louis to the walk-in health centre myself but the ambulance service stopped me doing so. I had the door keys in my hand and if I had taken him he would be alive today.’

The Stockport inquest heard that Louis, a pupil at St Alphonsus RC Primary School, had been off school for days, complaining of blinding headaches and chronic fatigue. He had also lost a considerable amount of weight in the weeks before his death last July.

On the morning of Saturday July 11 his condition deteriorated and his family became very worried. Mrs Austin, 44, of Old Trafford, Manchester, said: ‘He looked really, really ill. ‘His eyes looked like they’d sunk in to his head and when he took his top off you could see his ribs. He looked like he had come out of Belsen. ‘He was really hot and bothered, and had a really bad headache.’

Family friend Owen Thompson was so concerned when he saw Louis that he immediately dialled 999 and pleaded for an ambulance. But call handler Andrew Wright decided Louis was not a priority and the call was transferred to the urgent care desk.

The inquest heard that ambulance service bosses admit paramedics should have been sent immediately.

Debra Iveson, working at the urgent care desk, phoned Mr Thompson back before referring the case to an out-of-hours call centre where GP Tracey Leigh diagnosed swine flu.

The coroner said Dr Leigh had had been wrong but her actions could not be considered ‘gross failure.’ Dr Leigh told the hearing: ‘It was the wrong judgement, I know that now and I’m absolutely devastated. No doctor wants this to happen to them. I have an eight-year-old daughter myself.’

The cause of Louis’s death was diabetic ketoacidosis, which can strike in 24 hours due to lack of insulin and has symptoms including vomiting, dehydration, rasping breath and coma.

A spokesman for the ambulance service said changes had been made to ensure such mistakes never happened again. [Hah!]

SOURCE



British girl, 14, diagnosed with migraine had 3 brain tumours 'and would have died in two days if father had not insisted on CT scan'

Doctors repeatedly mistook a teenage girl's cancer for migraines - spotting three tumours only after her father refused to leave the hospital until she had a CT scan.

Danica Maxwell, 14, said she felt like 'a nuisance' and 'just another kid with a migraine who was making a fuss' when she was seen at the West Cumberland Hospital, in Whitehaven, Cumbria. When she was eventually operated on she was told she would have died had the cancer gone unnoticed any longer. The tumours removed from her body were deemed so unusual they were sent to America for analysis.

Danica, of Egremont, Cumbria, had been suffering from memory loss, confusion, drowsiness, violent sickness and agonising headaches. But doctors said her symptoms were the result of migraines and transferred her to a migraine clinic.

It was only when she visited the hospital for a third time that the cancer was discovered - but only after her father insisted she was scanned. The scan revealed three tumours - one the size of a tennis ball which was pressing against her spine.

She was taken to Newcastle General Hospital to be operated on immediately. A surgeon there told her she would have been dead within the next 48 hours had the cancer gone unnoticed any longer.

Danica said: 'The surgeon told me that if we hadn't found the cancer I would have been dead in two days. 'My dad saved my life, without him I could have collapsed and died at any moment.'

The teenager had more than a month of radiotherapy after the operation and is soon to begin a four-month chemotherapy programme.

She said: 'I am really very angry about how I was treated at the West Cumberland Hospital. 'I felt like I was a nuisance. I was just another kid with a migraine who was making a fuss.'

The schoolgirl, who loves rugby and dancing, started to suffer from a stiff neck last August but thought the soreness was due to her active lifestyle.

'I felt dizzy all the time. I couldn't walk in a straight line and my headaches were getting really bad. 'I was scared something wasn't right and so I was afraid to tell my parents. 'But now I want to warn teenagers that if they feel something is wrong, they should let someone know.'

Mother Allsion said: 'We were made to feel as if we were wasting the doctors' time. 'It was as if she was some moody teenager playing up. Despite the fact it took eight attempts to wake her at one point we were told there was nothing to suggest she needed a scan.'

The teenager was released after being given migraine tablets and painkillers. But when her condition didn't improve, her family returned to the West Cumberland Hospital and father John told medics he wouldn't leave until Danica was given a scan.

Both the family and the hospital staff were flabbergasted by the results. John said: 'The doctor apologised to us and Danica was taken to a hospital in Newcastle straight away. 'Allison, Danica and I want parents to learn from us. If they believe something is wrong with their children they shouldn't let anyone dismiss their concerns.'

The Maxwells have thanked family and friends for their support and help at such a stressful time.

They are grateful to Janice Shepherd and volunteers who raised £2,225 at a prize bingo, Michelle and Stuart Rogers who raised £1,650 following a sponsored walk and Mat and Shameem Arnold who collected £564 following a sponsored Zumba dance session.

John said: 'We are so grateful to everyone for their help. Obviously, we are just working on Danica getting better. 'But the money raised helps to pay for digs, parking and petrol when we travel to Newcastle. It means that is one thing we don't have to worry about.'

A spokeswoman for the North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust said: 'Under the Data Projection Act we are not at liberty to discuss a patient's care and we have to protect their right to confidentiality.

'We would encourage anyone who wishes to raise concerns with us, that they make direct contact with our Patient Advice and Liaison Service or submit a formal complaint.'

SOURCE



St George's Day



It is late Friday night as I am writing this in Australia, which means that it is sometime around Friday morning in America and around lunchtime in Britain.

And Friday 23rd is of course St. George's day -- England's national day. So as I am mainly of English descent, I thought it appropriate to mark the day -- which I did. I have had the St George cross flying from my flagpole all day and we had a leisurely commemorative dinner for just four family members.

We started the evening by standing and singing "God save the Queen" (the English national anthem) followed by a toast to the Queen and a toast to "St. George and merrie England". Then we sat down to a meal of England's favourite food: curry.

We washed the curry down with some good Australian "champagne" and a very pleasant evening was had by all. The chat over dinner was very wide-ranging and at one stage I even read a couple of choice excerpts from the 39 "Articles of Religion" from the 1662 "Book of Common Prayer" of the Church of England. None of us are religious but we still enjoyed the power of those historic words.



Fly the flag of St George and celebrate English patron saint, urges the Archbishop of York

I have the St George flag flying from my flagpole right now -- JR



The Archbishop of York has called for a display of patriotism today, St George’s Day. Failure to celebrate the English patron saint is a sign of ingratitude for the country’s heritage and a mark of cynicism, said Dr John Sentamu. He added that it was time for the English ‘to rejoice in the land that we live in.’

Uganda-born Dr Sentamu, second only to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the hierarchy of the Church of England, made his plea for patriotism after a survey showed that many believe England has lost its national identity and feel ashamed of their nationality.

The Archbishop has long been an opponent of the multiculturalism fashionable among some of his C of E colleagues, which sees English history as disreputable and English patriotism as sinister.

He announced that he will fly the red cross of St George from his palace at Bishopthorpe in York today. A group of schoolchildren have been invited to play rounders on the palace lawn as part of a day of celebration.

Dr Sentamu said: ‘To be patriotic is to appreciate and be grateful for all that is valuable in the country you live in. It does not require you to be a xenophobe or a blinkered nationalist.

‘The failure to recognise and appreciate the goodly heritage of one’s country of residence is a sign of all-round ingratitude. Ingratitude in turn breeds cynicism.’

This week a poll by the magazine This England rated England as the least patriotic country in Europe and said that many believed if they tried to fly a St George’s flag from their house they would be told to take it down.

SOURCE



Pupil behaviour 'poor in fifth of British schools'

Behaviour is still not good enough in more than a fifth of secondary schools, according to figures. At least 700 state secondaries in England are failing to keep order to a high standard, it was revealed, despite hundreds of millions of pounds spent by Labour to crackdown on unruly pupils.

In some [minority] areas, behaviour was poor in more than half of comprehensives, figures suggested.

The disclosure comes just weeks after Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, told headteachers to take parents of the worst offenders to court for failing to control their children.

He said behaviour had improved dramatically under Labour but mothers and fathers had to play their part to make sure all pupils followed school rules.

According to figures, the number of schools with good or outstanding behaviour – the two top rankings on a four-point scale operated by Ofsted – has increased year-on-year since 2006.

But it suggests behaviour is still not good enough in more than 21 per cent of secondaries.

The conclusions follow a survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers last month that found a quarter of teachers had been forced to deal with violent pupils in the current academic year.

The Conservatives accused Labour of “undermining adult authority in schools”. Michael Gove, the Conservative shadow schools spokesman, said: “Over the last ten years teachers have been denied the power to keep order in the classroom and stop violent incidents. Unless there is good discipline pupils can't learn and teachers can't teach and the children who suffer most are the poorest.”

Mr Balls said: "It's encouraging that the number of schools judged good or outstanding for behaviour continues to increase and there are fewer schools with poor behaviour standards, even under the new inspection framework. "But I know there is more to do to make sure every school is an orderly place with strong discipline so no child's learning is disrupted by the bad behaviour of a minority."

Figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families show that 78.6 per cent of secondaries had good or outstanding behaviour in December 2009. The figures – based on an official breakdown of judgments made by Ofsted – show that standards have steadily improved since 2006. Four years ago, some 73.7 per cent of schools imposed order to a high standard, rising to 74.5 per cent a year later and 76.1 per cent in 2008.

But the latest statistics reveal stark differences between areas. In Bradford, Hull, Brighton and Stockport more than half of schools were rated merely satisfactory or inadequate for behaviour – the watchdog’s bottom two rankings.

Last month, the Government suggested schools could crackdown on the worst pupils by targeting parents. Under plans, headteachers can apply for parenting orders, forcing mothers and fathers to attend counselling sessions and parenting classes, as well as setting out strict rules on how they should bring up sons and daughters.

This includes making sure children do not stay up late, ensuring they cannot get access to alcohol at home, getting them to school on time and making sure uniform rules are followed.

New powers for teachers to use force and search pupils without consent for alcohol, drugs, stolen property or weapons have also been introduced

SOURCE



British High School exams HAVE got easier, says Cambridge exams chief

GCSEs and A-levels really have got easier, an exams chief has admitted. Tim Oates, a key figure in Cambridge University's exams board, admitted his warning over 'grade inflation' could amount to a 'Ratner moment'.

In a paper designed to provoke debate about exam standards, he drew a comparison with jeweller Gerald Ratner, who in 1991 sent the value of his stores plummeting by admitting they sold 'crap'.

Mr Oates admitted exam boards had bowed to political pressure to make exams more 'accessible'. Pupils and teachers are also helped by guidance on how tests are marked. At the same time, A-levels, and increasingly GCSEs, had changed in structure to become 'modular', with pupils examined on their courses in bite-size chunks.

The measures had, over the years, led to 'subtle drift', Mr Oates admitted. It is thought to be the first time such a senior figure in the exams world has publicly acknowledged the possibility of the tests getting easier.

Mr Oates is head of research at Cambridge Assessment, the parent company of the OCR exam board, one of four offering GCSEs and A-levels in England and Wales. The company is a department of Cambridge University, and a non-profit agency.

His paper was published ahead of a conference on exam standards to be staged by Cambridge Assessment next week.

The controversial remarks emerged as another speaker at the conference - testing expert Professor Roger Murphy - warned that trusting GCSE and A-level results was 'dangerous' because grades were only 'approximations' of pupils' ability.

The men's comments are part of a drive to shine a light on the shadowy world of exam grading.

The proportion of typical A-level students gaining three A-levels has risen to 17 per cent from 7 per cent in the mid-1990s.

Mr Oates said: 'Giving the benefit of the doubt to pupils - consistent with the general moral sense of "access" and "best chance" which was foremost in the political agenda - can result in subtle grade inflation.'

He went on: 'Increasing access, updating content, switching to modular/unit provision - and being as transparent as possible over mark schemes, grade criteria and guidance - have all been fervent pre-occupations of policy makers and the education establishment. Awarding bodies delivered on that agenda. 'To investigate possible grade inflation, to publicly acknowledge that there may have been subtle drift, and that a reorientation of standards might be required, sounds like a "Ratner moment" for awarding bodies.' But he said boards must not shy away from self-criticism.

But Professor Murphy, of Nottingham University, said it was wrong to try to turn grading into an 'exact science'. He said: 'Most examinations require the person taking them to undertake a sample of tasks and do not attempt to provide a comprehensive examination of the area under assessment.

'Give the candidate a different sample of tasks and almost certainly they will produce a different performance. 'Give them the tasks on a different day and their performance may vary again. 'Give their responses to a range of different examiners to mark and again you will probably get different judgments.'

SOURCE



Former IPCC chair John Houghton sees climate change as a theological issue: second coming etc

An email from Michael Potts [themillshoponline@yahoo.co.uk] below. I hasten to add that the John Ray mentioned is a long-dead English naturalist

Hardly news as such, but if you weren't already aware, I thought you would be interested in taking a look at the website for the John Ray Initiative - a charity set up and run by former IPCC chair Sir John Houghton.

It is very revealing for showing an Al Gore-like combining of environmentalism with religous fervour. Here for example, is their newsletter from 2007

QUOTE:

"At Bristol’s Trinity College, we spent a day in March examining the Severn Barrage proposal. ‘Environmental Decision-Making: Does Theology Help?’ was the conference title. The conclusion was that theology does help. It sets the framework of human and creation care in which we must operate"

This is quite representative - all the other newsletters take a similar theme of the end-days approaching and the second coming and see climate change as a harbinger of that. I know it sounds wacky that Sir John Houghton would be publicising this stuff, but it all checks out. The charity is registered and can be verified.



British PM savaged by young Radio One listeners over Labour's record on immigration

In one of his first campaign encounters with ordinary people, Gordon Brown came off worst yesterday when he was questioned by young first-time voters. The Prime Minister lost his temper and stumbled over his answers as he came under withering attack about immigration and his expenses.

After weeks of being transported from one photo opportunity with Labour party members to another, faced with real voters on Radio 1's Newsbeat Mr Brown was repeatedly interrupted and urged to admit his mistakes.

He was forced on to the back foot over his claim for thousands of pounds to pay his brother to hire a cleaner for his second home.

Gordon Brown being interviewed by BBC Radio 1's Tulip Mazumdar today where he became increasingly defensive as he took questions from first time voters

One questioner in the programme presented by Tulip Mazumdar was Rachel Barr, 18, a student at Edinburgh University. Barr: Young people aren't voting at the moment. I think that's partly due to the MPs expenses scandal. They don't have much trust in politicians or in politics any more. How do you plan to engage young people in politics again?

Brown: I'm shocked what some MPs did. It was a scandal. My father was a minister of the church. I was taught that honesty was the most important thing . . . I'm not in politics for what I can get out of it.

Mazumdar: What about your expenses because you claimed thousands of pounds for cleaning? What was going through your head when you thought it was OK for the taxpayer to pay for that?

Brown [irritated]: I've got to stay in two places at once. Right. And I've got my wife and my children. Mazumdar: But for your cleaning?

Brown: I had a cleaner and paid her a decent wage and at that time people thought it was acceptable if you had someone to clean your house, it was an acceptable expense.

Barr: [It's] insulting that we pay for your cleaning.

Mr Brown then faced a young voter who said her builder uncle was out of a job because immigration had got 'out of control'.

Siobhan Randles, 25, demanded on nine separate occasions that Mr Brown explain why Labour had failed to introduce tougher immigration controls before he set up a points system in 2007.

The Prime Minister appeared to patronise his questioner by explaining: 'It's called the Australian style points system because it's used in Australia.'

A succession of questions called on him to admit that Labour 'got it wrong' when it estimated that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would arrive after joining the EU. In fact more than a million migrants from new EU states have come since 2004.

The Prime Minister replied: 'I don't think [we got it] wrong. We didn't misjudge it.'

Miss Randles hit back: 'How do you expect us to restore our faith and trust in you when you can't admit that there's a problem?'

Mr Brown conceded: 'I said there has been a problem and we're dealing with it by tightening up the controls on immigration.'

Source





22 April, 2010

For sale: Your most intimate secrets... thanks to the national NHS database

Browsing through her NHS records, Helen Wilkinson stopped short. There, in front of her in black and white, was an entry labelling her an alcoholic. She began to panic. Who else could have seen the incriminating information? Would it affect her career? How had this awful mistake been made?

'I went ballistic,' she says. 'As a former NHS manager, I know a lot of people who work in the health service. They could all have seen it. It was awful.'

A local councillor from High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, Wilkinson had gone into hospital for a surgical procedure. But an erroneous entry made on her file in 1988 had subsequently been added to her computerised records - and these could now be easily accessed by tens of thousands of medical workers.

She is just one of thousands of patients who have unwittingly become victims of the new NHS computer system. Beset by blunders, the national database of patient records is now four years late and some £10bn over-budget. Worse still, it appears that civil liberties campaigners' worst fears are now also being realised.

Wilkinson was able to amend her records - after a two-year battle, during which her MP raised her case in Parliament. But the terrifying truth is that had she not checked her details, she might never have known of the mistake - which could have blighted her life.

Indeed, last month it emerged that as many as 140,000 non-medical staff, including porters, cleaners and receptionists have access to sensitive NHS patient files.

Crucially, these auxiliary staff do not need patient consent or to inform clinicians before opening the data. This disturbing lack of privacy protection has been revealed by a Freedom of Information survey carried out by the campaign group Big Brother Watch.

Indeed, my own investigation into the state of the NHS computer project has discovered a litany of frightening errors that go to the very heart of the debate regarding patient confidentiality.

Most worryingly, I was told that private detectives are selling top-secret patient information on the black market for up to £300 a time. They claim they can reveal ex-directory numbers and private addresses, along with other personal medical details. It is turning into the world's biggest IT disaster

In Cambridgeshire, an unencrypted memory stick with the details of 741 patients from Addenbrooke's Hospital was discovered by a car wash attendant, in an unattended vehicle. Opening up the files on his computer after work, he was able to see patients' names, operation dates, treatments given, and other highly personal information.

In North Tees, more than 50 NHS staff members were found to have viewed illicitly the records of an unnamed celebrity, for entertainment. There is speculation that he was the late former England Football manager, Sir Bobby Robson, who was being treated for a brain tumour. Those involved were censured in an internal memo.

In Scotland, where the system has been piloted, a doctor has even appeared in court for looking at the Prime Minister's medical records. It was also claimed Dr Andrew Jamieson looked up the personal details of local celebrities, including several Glasgow Celtic footballers.

And despite scares regarding erroneous information on the records, the system is now even being used to record controversial End of Life Plans, which detail a patient's requests if they ever find themselves critically ill and needing life support.

Alarmingly, this means that if you were taken to A&E and the wrong details were accessed, or had been incorrectly inputted on the system, you would not be revived.

Unsurprisingly, a backlash against the new database is now under way. As the NHS begins the mammoth - and costly - task of informing patients that their records are being computerised, consumer organisations report hundreds of thousands of enquiries from people hoping to opt out of the system altogether.

So just what is the purpose of the new system? What information is being stored on the NHS computer about you? Can you choose who looks at your records? And most importantly, how worried should we be at the problems that have already surfaced?

In order to answer these questions, we need to go back to the beginning. When Tony Blair came into power in 1997, he ordered a wide-ranging review of the NHS. One of the recommendations was that a single electronic 'care record' should be set up, containing the details of every NHS patient and connecting the nation's 30,000 GPs and 300 hospitals.

It was to cost £2.3bn over three years, and was named - in a nod to medics - the Spine. Work began on the system in 2002 and a new agency, NHS Connecting for Health (CfH) was set up in Leeds to build it.

The resulting database is said to be 'the biggest IT project in the world'. But the project ran into problems early on. Two of four computer companies involved have already withdrawn or been sacked.

Of course, the system should be a huge improvement on cumbersome paper records. It means that were you to have a car crash hundreds of miles from your home, casualty doctors could instantly access your medical records.

But like many a New Labour idea, it soon became apparent that the scheme was a cash cow for the consultancy firms so favoured by Tony Blair and his apparatchiks. McKinsey consultants undertook a lucrative review, as did technology analyst Ovum.

To protect the taxpayer, the companies involved were made to sign contracts making them liable for huge financial penalties if they withdrew from the project. But when Accenture withdrew in September 2006, the then director-general of the project, Richard Granger, charged them not £1billion, as the contract permitted, but £63million.

Perhaps tellingly, Granger's first job was with Andersen Consulting, which later became Accenture. Recently, his mother revealed that he had even failed his computer studies course at Bristol University. Astonishingly, she said: 'I can't believe that my son is running the IT modernisation programme for the whole of the NHS.' Granger earned over £285,000 a year.

The Commons' Public Accounts Committee has repeatedly expressed serious concerns over the project's scope, planning, budgeting, and practical value to patients.

Indeed, it issued a damning report, with chairman Edward Leigh claiming: 'This is the biggest IT project in the world and it is turning into the biggest disaster.' It also criticised the project for providing little clinical benefit to patients despite the huge cost to the taxpayer.

Doctors are equally suspicious. The British Medical Association is so worried it wants the new system suspended. And only 40 per cent of doctors are said to want the service.

The National Audit Office has also expressed grave concerns. In 2008, it said that the 'challenge was far greater than envisaged' and the project would overrun its schedule by years. Indeed, it will now be 2014 or 2015 before every NHS trust has the system in place, at a cost of a staggering £12.4billion. Some fear the final price tag could be as high as £20billion.

Much of this will have been spent on putting patient records online. Details of patients' allergies and medicines will all be accessible via the computer system. More controversially, the new files will also contain information on sexual history, drug use, pregnancy, HIV status and mental illness.

So who will have access to your notes? Astonishingly, not only GPs but hospital employees, nurses and social workers can all contribute and read information.

But the latest research shows that making medical records available to social workers has already eroded people's willingness to approach their GPs with certain problems. Vulnerable mothers, for example, may be less likely to seek treatment for post-natal depression if they think it might result in them losing their child to social services.

Patients can opt out of some parts of the system and around nine million patients have already received a letter alerting them about ways they can do this. But the system operates on the basis of implied consent. In other words, if you do nothing, the NHS will assume that you approve of having your records computerised in this way.

Nor can patients opt out entirely. All basic details must be logged, as must a record of the specialists or clinics they attend. Visits to psychiatrists, alcohol-dependency clinics or sexually-transmitted disease centres must all feature.

And according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, over half a million NHS employees - including non-medical cleaning and reception staff - can already access these details. Indeed, it is just such information that is apparently being touted by private investigators on the black market.

Because a swipe card and password must be used to access the files, anyone accessing them should theoretically leave behind an electronic 'fingerprint'. In truth, however, it is common to share cards and passwords within the NHS, making such security features utterly redundant.

It is still unclear exactly how widely the information will be shared between government bodies. But civil liberties campaigners are concerned that private details could be illicitly divulged to insurers, employers, and other external bodies.

In America, there have been several cases of computerised medical information being divulged. A Californian woman was told her ex-spouse had HIV, which she used in a custody battle.

A driver in Atlanta lost his job after his insurer told his employer that he drank. And American celebrities including Paris Hilton and Britney Spears have had their medical records leaked to the press.

Then there is the possibility of unauthorised access by computer hackers and career criminals.

In addition, NHS chiefs also plan to legally sell information to private firms, including details of diagnoses, operations and medicines. Some of this information will not be anonymous, and patients will not be informed if it is being used in this way.

And then there are the basic failures of the system itself. Enfield Primary Care Trust, for example, was unable to access vital information of patients awaiting operations, and had to delay surgery for 63 people. It also found that the system had failed to flag up possible child-abuse victims entering hospital to key staff.

At Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust, meanwhile, a glitch in the system meant that potentially infectious patients with MRSA were not isolated.

And at Barts and The London NHS Trust, the target for treating emergency patients within four hours was regularly missed - and blamed on the computer system.

Meanwhile, the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust in London had to take on 40 extra administrative staff simply to deal with the new system, which cost them £10million. On top of this, the trust also had to admit to losing a computer disc containing the details of 20,000 patients.

And experts fear this could prove to be just the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Professor Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at the University of Cambridge computer laboratory and the leading British expert in the field, says the system could lead to a catastrophe.

'Imagine a doctor or professor leaving a laptop on a plane that includes the entire nation's health records,' said Anderson. 'It's not impossible.'

Then there is the risk that the computer system will go down, perhaps because of power cuts, taking with it vital patient records and the entire NHS appointments system. The scale of that possibility could be truly mind-boggling.

No wonder, then, that hundreds of thousands across Britain are already considering opting out. Indeed, Helen Wilkinson, who set up anti-database organisation The Big Opt Out after finding a potentially disastrous mistake in her own records, is being overwhelmed by calls from concerned patients.

'More and more people are getting behind the campaign,' she says. 'By filling in a letter from our website and sending it to your GP, you can opt out, too. So far, hundreds of thousands of people have contacted us or downloaded a form.

Of course, computers are today an essential tool in medicine and computerised records will inevitably help save lives. But, as Helen Wilkinson says, the question is whether the Government can be trusted with the technology. 'When it comes to this sort of personal information, it has demonstrated only too clearly that it cannot be trusted,' she says. 'Its record on keeping data secure is frankly appalling.'

SOURCE



Britain: Conservative vision for education 'will change schools for the better'

The writer below sees no need for radical change but that probably reflects today's wishy-washy British Conservative thinking

When the Liberal MP WE Forster masterminded the successful passage of the Education Act, 1870, the main opposition to the legislation came from within his own party. He did in fact rely on Conservative support for his measure to become law.

No one would deny that Forster’s eventual Act, introducing primary schooling for most children, was a big step forward. One hundred and 40 years on and as the electoral campaign begins to heat up, the Conservative Party is determined to welcome in a new vision for educational change and to stamp home its message should they be able to gain enough seats in the House of Commons after the next general election.

But what do the Tories stand for in education? What policies are they unveiling for schools and for the teaching profession? In this article, I will put forward some of the keynote school and teacher policies currently supported by the Conservative Party.

An important starting point for a new Conservative government would be the schools. The Conservative Party would legislate at the outset to open more academies, and radically reform Ofsted, the body in charge of inspecting standards in schools.

Much effort will go towards using the best schools to help the ones that are struggling.

Michael Gove MP, Shadow Secretary for Children, Schools and Families, would promote a Bill, to become law by the end of July 2010, leading to the creation of new academies.

The Tories would be able to build on the record of the Labour Government, and they would seemingly enhance the status of the academy and the attractions of combining the best of the public with the best of private provision in the school system.

In a similar vein Kunskapsskolan (translates into English as the ‘knowledge school’), Sweden’s largest supplier of independent schools, provides an important model for change. This scheme envisages that greater choice will be made available to parents, regardless of their income.

Teachers would be given far more freedom to develop innovative practices in the way they teach children and it is evident that vital lessons can be learnt from Sweden and many of the schools in that country.

Cameron and his team believe that schools thrive when they are allowed the freedom to innovate. Academies and schools based on the Kunskapsskolan blueprint could benefit from other freedoms such as the right to shape the curriculum, to exclude disruptive pupils, and to choose the best elements in the private and public sectors. And to enforce their own discipline.

I can’t see much wrong with this kind of approach, but an emphasis must, on this policy, in my view, be placed on the importance of compassion and care and on not forgetting that the poor and deprived deserve more than just lip service and are more often than not in need of special help and consideration.

Cameron himself has been touched by the sad loss of his disabled son, Ivan, who passed at the age of six. Conservative policies designed for disabled children open the door for children in need either to attend mainstream schools or go to special schools. This will avoid the sort of blanket solution that many previous governments have mistakenly pursued.

The Conservatives also aim to replace the leadership of those schools with persistent serious problems. Where Ofsted judges that schools are failing to teach the basics properly, where discipline is absent and where the leadership has failed, they will install leadership teams with a track record of success.

As far as inspection is concerned outstanding schools will too be free from Ofsted inspection. Improvements in discipline are, moreover, a key tenet behind the Tory programme.

Quangos, those organisations or agencies that are financed by a government but that act independently of it, that are wasteful will meet with the full force of Tory venom and I would expect where savings can be made the money would be best spent on helping directly to finance projects in schools that really give a boost to realise as the full potential of school children.

However, root and branch reforms are not always the best way ahead.

The Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, the regulatory body for public examinations and publicly funded qualifications such as GCSEs and A-levels, is, for instance, one quango ready for the chop, and a degree of understanding might be advised. The QCDA, for instance, has done much work in the area of disability awareness, and success in this area, particularly for the deaf and visually impaired, should not be overlooked.

Yet the QCDA might be stripped of its control to meddle with A-levels, and instead they would be given back to the universities and exam boards. This would reverse decline in the A-level's reputation globally and help bring back the former prestige and status attached to the delivery of the nation’s examinations.

Cameron has been inspired by the passion for their subject shown by teachers across many disciplines and in many different schools and colleges he would like to build the National Curriculum around a basic entitlement to study scientific disciplines in a more rigorous manner: each of the three basic sciences would be given greater depth and detail than at present.

Turning to the teachers – those heroes without whom everything would collapse – what do the Tories have in store for them? Professional status is one dominant value and it definitely appears that the Conservatives are keen to improve the lot of the classroom teacher.

Economic stringency might limit the rewards going into their pockets and it might be hard to give in too liberally to teachers in their demands for substantial pay increases when there are so many additional deserving cases contributing to society and the economy.

Teachers’ academic credentials will no doubt be greater and those with the basic pass degree might find that their options to take up teaching would be limited.

Speaking with Nick Gibb MP, the Shadow Minister for Schools since July 2009, I learnt that he is very sympathetic to causes which help teachers. A Royal College of Teachers established along the lines of the royal colleges in the medical profession sounds an intriguing plan, and is supported in the House of Lords by Baroness Pauline Perry.

For such a reform the Conservatives would be wise to get teachers support first and to continue to consider the role of bodies such as the existing College of Teachers, the world’s oldest surviving teachers’ society, incorporated by Royal Charters in 1849 and 1998.

On the other hand, Cameron has less passion for the General Teaching Council for England, the watchdog of the teaching profession, brought in by New Labour, and similar to the GMC in the medical profession.

I doubt whether Cameron would abolish it but a revised role for this body, might well be in the interests of teachers who are generally reluctant to have their annual fee for membership forcefully extracted from their salary, as has been the case since 2000.

The GTC for England clearly needs to focus on primarily being in charge of teachers’ discipline though with perhaps less stress on naming and shaming those found guilty of misconduct...

SOURCE



British "centrist" leader is no patriot

There is an element of truth in what he says but it is hardly a balanced view, let alone a patriotic one

Nick Clegg has claimed that the British people have ‘a more insidious cross to bear’ than Germany over the Second World War. In an astonishing attack on our national pride, the Liberal Democrat leader said we suffered from ‘delusions of grandeur’ and a ‘misplaced sense of superiority’ over having defeated the horrors of Nazism.

He said we found it hard to accept that Germany had become a ‘vastly more prosperous nation’ and that ‘we need to be put back in our place’.

His views, outlined in a newspaper article when he was a member of the European Parliament, cast grave doubts over his judgment of international affairs ahead of the second leaders’ debate this evening, when the topic will be foreign policy.

The jibes threatened to undermine the surge which has taken Mr Clegg from also-ran to serious player in the opinion polls.

The passionately pro-Europe Mr Clegg revealed his views in an article for the Guardian newspaper in 2002. ‘Watching Germany rise from its knees after the war and become a vastly more prosperous nation has not been easy on the febrile British psyche,’ Mr Clegg wrote, before attacking Britain’s approach to the war.

‘All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still.

‘A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off. We need to be put back in our place.’

Tory MP Nicholas Soames, grandson of wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, said: ‘These views will disgust people the length and breadth of the country. They show that Nick Clegg is unfit to lead his party, let alone the country.

‘They are an insult to the memory of Britain’s war dead and to a time when the British public all pulled together for the common good. 'They prove that Mr Clegg shares the European view of Britain rather than the British view.’

Mr Clegg, who has a Spanish wife, a Dutch mother and a Russian grandparent, began his career as a Brussels bureaucrat and moved to Westminster after a spell as a Euro MP. Ironically, his mother was interned by the Japanese during the war.

His outburst was not an isolated incident. In another article from June 2003, Mr Clegg continued to denounce ‘Britain’s culture of superiority’.

Making clear his love affair with all things European, he condemned the British ‘belief in our innate difference from our mainland continental cousins’. He went on: ‘No other culture in Europe is quite so enamoured by such a false notion of difference.

'We Brits concoct a historically illiterate notion that we are divorced from outside influences. Maybe it was loss of empire, the choppy waters of the Channel, or the last war.’

Those with recent experience of fighting for their country condemned his views. Colonel Tim Collins, commander of the Royal Irish Regiment during the Iraq War, said: ‘What he’s articulating is the Liberal Democrat view of the British people.

‘They are ashamed of them. They are ashamed of British identity and pandering to those who don’t share it.’

SOURCE



Dangerous to carry a walking stick in Britain

Dashing out of a shop after buying a newspaper, Andy Berry's only concern was catching his bus. But that worry was soon forgotten when he was confronted by five police officers carrying Heckler& Koch machine guns.

The 29-year-old was ordered to approach them and hand over his collapsible walking stick. His surreal predicament continued as the armed officers checked the black stick did not pose a threat - before revealing a member of public had mistaken it for a shotgun.

After realising the error, the police warned Mr Berry not to carry the stick in an 'inappropriate' fashion before sending him on his way

Mr Berry said: 'It was very scary at the time. I just froze to the spot and was a bit shaken afterwards but I can see the funny side now. 'I am just grateful that the police were not trigger-happy and prepared to shoot first and ask questions later. When I came out of the shop and saw them with their machine guns I thought, "What the hell is going on?"

'I never imagined it was anything to do with me. Then they asked me to stop. Their exact words were, "Can you come here for a moment please?".

After hearing why he had been stopped, Mr Berry said: 'I told them that it was just an extendable walking stick. It was black and I was carrying it horizontally like an umbrella but even so, it was clearly not a gun. 'I was warned not to carry the stick like that again in case it gave people the impression that it was a gun.'

The bizarre confrontation happened on Monday morning as shop assistant Mr Berry made his way to the convenience store where he works in Kesgrave near Ipswich. He bought the £5.99 stick, which is two feet long when collapsed, last year after suffering a leg injury and was taking it to work to donate to one of his customers.

However the intended recipient had found an alternative - and Mr Berry was too scared to risk venturing into public with the apparently threatening object and gave it to someone else.

The case has echoes of painter and decorator Harry Stanley, 46, who was shot dead by police in September 1999 after a caller dialled 999 to say that he appeared to be carrying a gun in Hackney, East London. It later emerged the 'gun' was a table leg he was carrying in a plastic bag.

SOURCE





21 April, 2010

One night doctor to look after 400 NHS hospital patients as 48-hour working week cuts cover

The NHS has cut the time a doctor is allowed to work but has just ignored the gap in services that creates

Doctors are looking after up to 400 patients a night on their own due to the lack of cover in hospitals, a study has found. Experts warned last night that this was a 'disaster waiting to happen'.

The 48-hour maximum working week - introduced under EU law last August - is being blamed for insufficient staff cover, poorer training and greater sickness rates among junior doctors.

A report from the Royal College of Physicians investigated the impact of the European Working Time Directive on hospitals in England and Wales.

It found each doctor cares for an average of 61 patients each night but the range covers one to 400 patients. In comparison, a doctor cares for just 11 patients on average during the day.

The data from 670 medical teams also revealed that junior doctors with less than two years' experience on NHS wards can often be the most senior person on duty at night.

There are currently no guidelines about the maximum number of patients a doctor should care for or level of consultant cover at night.

An anonymous survey was sent to all consultants in England and Wales asking them to record the make-up of their team and how many patients were being cared for.

The snapshot survey was carried out at 11am and 11pm on November 5 last year. Data was collected from 887 hospital teams at 11am, including 4,004 junior doctors caring for 18,854 patients, and from 670 teams at 11pm, including 2,263 junior doctors caring for 97,561 patients. At 11pm, 63 teams had a junior doctor in their first two years of training as their most senior medical cover.

In comparison, only 40 teams said consultants were involved in the direct delivery of overnight care.

The study, to be published in the journal Clinical Medicine, found day cover on wards ranged from two to 65 patients per junior doctor, with fewest doctors in Wales and most trainees in London.

Almost six in ten consultants reported high sickness rates among their trainees since the introduction of the directive.

The highest rates were among second year trainees, 'possibly reflecting a loss of team working and sense of belonging in doctors a year into their training', said the college.

Last night, John Black, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said: 'This new evidence corroborates what surgical trainees have been telling us for months. 'Under the European Working Time Directive, rotas are unworkable to the point of being dangerous, and junior doctors without adequate supervision are being asked to make critical decisions beyond their competence.

'We have overwhelming evidence from the frontline that safe and effective hospital cover, especially at night, cannot be sustained under the EWTD.

'You only have to look at the situation at Mid Staffordshire Trust, which was heavily criticised in an independent report earlier this year, to know that one trainee covering all surgical wards at night is a disaster waiting to happen.'

Dr Andrew Goddard, director of the medical workforce unit at the Royal College of Physicians, said: 'The very low number of doctors per patient at night in some hospidoctorstals raises serious concerns for patient safety and there are also worrying reports of very junior doctors being left unsupported.'

Dr Goddard, who led the survey, said rotas compiled to fit in with the directive limited the time juniors spend learning and that 'patient care is being spread too thinly'.

He said: 'In the daytime, care for many patients is carried out by junior doctors, which limits their time shadowing more senior doctors and improving their knowledge and skills. The 48-hour week was brought in to improve the wellbeing of doctors, and by extension prevent mistakes in patient care.

'The apparent rise in sickness rates of junior doctors since the introduction of the EWTD highlights the additional stresses that are being put upon trainees by new rotas.'

A spokesman for the doctors' pressure group RemedyUK said: 'This depressing report confirms that doctors are being stretched to provide a full clinical service, and that training and supervision are both suffering.'

SOURCE



One result of the mostly non-existent British policing of ferals

Lawless gangs can mostly do what they like in Britain. Eventually people will take the remedy into their own hands. Now a house owner is arrested after yob urinating against his house is stabbed to death

A householder was being quizzed by murder squad police tonight after a man was allegedly stabbed to death outside his home during a violent confrontation.

The 52-year-old was detained after an incident with father-of-one Anthony Kershaw, 25, who had apparently been caught urinating against his front door.

It is believed the householder, who had suffered various incidents of anti-social behaviour outside his home, had been asleep at his flat in Rochdale, Greater Manchester when he was woken up by a group of youths outside his home.

When he told them group to leave he was met with abuse and he decided to speak to them outside. As Mr Kershaw relieved himself against the man’s front door he was allegedly knifed in the stomach.

Mr Kershaw collapsed as his three friends then chased the householder back into his property. Police found him dying in a pool of blood outside the flat in the Smallbridge area of the town.

Eye witness Kelly Holliday, 26, who lives in the block of flats opposite said: 'I went for a cigarette in my bedroom window at about 10.30pm and I heard all this shouting. I could hear people shouting. I think Anthony was there.

'At about 11pm two of them came to my door and asked for a cigarette. I said I hadn't got one. As they were going I heard someone shouting. 'I didn't think much of it because there's rumours after rumours around here but when I heard more people shouting someone had been stabbed, I went outside.

'The young men had been drinking and two men were kicking off at the flat whist a third man was holding Anthony's stomach. "I saw the arrested guy come out in handcuffs, he walked to the police van and I saw Anthony lying there with this big slice in his stomach. 'I've never seen Anthony or his brother on this part of the estate. The guy in the flat kept himself to himself. 'It's just awful. I feel sorry for the lad's mum. Things are really going to kick off on this estate now, you can just feel it.'

Mr Kershaw died 11 hours later in hospital despite efforts to save him.

Today the householder was being quizzed on suspicion of wounding Mr Kershaw with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Friends of Kershaw were leaving Facebook tributes to him. His girlfriend Natalie Brierley said: 'I will love you forever and a day. Always your mine and Stevie's angel and I will never ever stop loving you. Why did they have to take you away from me.'

Friend Jonathan Worrall said: 'Still can't believe it. Still feels like a big dream. Ant Kersh you were a true friend, absolute legend. I am going to miss you dearly pal. 'He was a great son, father,boyfriend, brother, grandson and friend - a true legend ! My heart goes out to his nearest and dearest. 'I will always miss you four the rest of my days. Devastated isn't the word.'

Mr Kershaw's three friends aged 21, 20 and 23 were being questioned on suspicion of burglary.

The case is expected to reignite the debate about a householder's right to defend his property.

Greater Manchester Police said: 'A murder investigation has been launched after a man was stabbed in the stomach in Smallbridge. 'Just after midnight on Tuesday 20 April 2010, police were called to a flat on Great Howarth, Smallbridge following reports a man had been stabbed in a disturbance.

'Police attended and a 25-year-old man was taken to hospital for treatment. He remained in a serious condition in hospital but died at 10.50am.

'One 52-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and three men aged 21, 20 and 23 have been arrested on suspicion of burglary. 'All four men remain in police custody for questioning.’

Det Chief Insp Jon Chadwick of Greater Manchester Police said: 'This was a fairly isolated incident and we are confident we will be able to establish exactly what happened that resulted in this man's death. 'If anyone has any information about what happened, please don't hesitate to get in touch.'

SOURCE



But attacking decent people is all in a day's work for the cowardly British police

It's safer: Elderly couple get criminal records after confronting neighbour whose dogs were fouling their allotments [gardens]

When they set up a communal allotment, Janet Kearney and Terry Marshall were hailed as model citizens. But the couple found their hard-won reputation counted for nothing after confronting a neighbour who apparently let her dogs foul the site.

The dispute got out of hand when police turned up at their home to arrest Mrs Kearney, 63, for a public order offence. Mr Marshall, 70, started to protest at his partner's treatment and found himself arrested for a similar offence.

Both were taken to a police station where they were photographed, and had their DNA and fingerprints taken. They then spent around 20 hours in cells before being interviewed.

The couple also had to wait six months before they were told they were being charged and would have to appear in court. However, after 'reluctantly' pleading guilty to avoid a trial, a district judge has now told them it was 'not appropriate' to punish them and gave them a conditional discharge.

Yesterday, the couple, from Colchester, Essex, hit out at their treatment. They said police had failed to deal with numerous complaints about 'neighbour from hell' Helena Moraldo, who owns three Jack Russells, and officers overreacted when Mrs Kearney exchanged harsh words with her.

Grandmother Mrs Kearney claimed she had been provoked into reacting after months of abuse from Miss Moraldo, who is in her 50s. She said Miss Moraldo had verbally abused neighbours after moving into the area in March last year and her pets caused damage to the fruit and veg that residents were growing.

She added: 'She was nothing but trouble. I waited until July but then I got into a bit of a verbal with her. 'She complained to police straight away and I suffered because I opened my mouth and stood up to her. The whole thing was such a waste of time and money.'

The couple founded the Magnolia Garden Project for 24 residents of council-owned flats in 2006. Helpers receive a free share of the food it produces, including apples, tomatoes, potatoes and runner beans.

Colchester Magistrates' Court heard Mrs Kearney shouted and swore at Miss Moraldo after spotting one of her dogs on the allotment. James O'Toole, defending, said his clients felt they had been provoked. He said: 'The project has done untold good for the community. The problem is there has been vandalism at the gardens.'.

Handing the couple the conditional discharge, district judge David Cooper said: 'It is not appropriate to punish you for this matter. 'You are both doing a lot of good for the community. It's unfortunate such unkind things were said.'

Colchester MP Bob Russell said he was 'horrified' at the prosecution. 'The judge is to be commended for his common sense. It's just a great shame it got to him in the first place,' he added.

The Crown Prosecution Service defended its decision to prosecute, saying there had been sufficient evidence against the couple.

Colchester Borough Homes, which owns the flats, said Miss Moraldo had since moved. She could not be contacted for comment.

SOURCE



And being confident is an offence, of course

Comedian and political activist Mark Thomas has won compensation from police who illegally stopped and searched him after a demonstration. The stand-up comic was awarded £1,200 over an incident in which he was confronted by two Metropolitan Police officers in September 2007.

Thomas was returning home after giving a speech against the arms trade in London’s Docklands when his wallet and shoulder bag were searched.

One officer recorded on an official form that they were suspicious of Thomas because of his “over-confident attitude”.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the force admitted falsely imprisoning Thomas and illegally questioning and searching him. He said the officer who searched him, a member of the force’s territorial support group, has received “formal words of advice”.

The spokesman added: “The Metropolitan Police Service has issued a full written apology to the claimant.”

The decision came after an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) sparked by Thomas’ original complaint. Thomas was held for 12 minutes as he attempted to catch the Docklands Light Railway home on September 11, 2007.

He had been invited by Campaign Against Arms Trade to address a protest outside the annual DSEi arms fair.

Thomas said that £1,200 for 12 minutes was “slightly more than my usual rate”. He said: “If over-confidence is a reason for a stop-and-search Jonathan Ross should never leave his house.”

Thomas added he would donate some of the money to the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation and also use some of it to fund his next live tour.

The comedian is a long-standing opponent of the arms trade and appeared on a secret police “spotter’s card” for surveillance officers several years ago. He has demonstrated against restrictions on protesting outside Parliament, the use of torture and the impact of new legislation on individual freedoms.

SOURCE



British bishop fears loss of faith schools

A senior Roman Catholic bishop criticised the Liberal Democrats yesterday for an election pledge that could result in the abolition of religious schools. The Lib Dem manifesto commits the party to stopping Catholic, Anglican and Jewish schools from selecting pupils on grounds of faith.

Critics say the policy will effectively spell the abolition of schools that have succeeded in delivering high quality education over generations.

The Catholic bishops have refused on principle to be drawn into party politics during the general election campaign. But the Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon, the Bishop of Nottingham, broke ranks to accuse the Lib Dems of seeking to destroy the partnership between the state and the churches in the provision of education.

“Catholics should give it very serious consideration before they vote Liberal Democrat,” said Bishop McMahon, the chairman of the Department for Education of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. “Our position is that every person should have the right to bring up their children according to their consciences.”

The policy is contained in a section of the Lib Dem election manifesto entitled Freeing Schools for Excellence. “We will ensure that all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith,” the policy states.

Critics said that if the policy was implemented 4,470 Church of England, 2,300 Catholic and 85 Jewish schools would lose control of the admissions process.

SOURCE



"Brain training" programs don't boost IQ

Surprise, surprise!

Brain training games do nothing to keep the mind nimble, according to Cambridge University researchers. The scientists concluded that while we get better at the complex computer exercises with practice, there is no evidence that this is of any use in everyday life.

Brain training games, like those played on the Nintendo DS or other computers, do not improve IQ, say scientists - and you'd be better off eating a salad

Endorsement by the likes of Nicole Kidman and Patrick Stewart has helped make brain training a multi-million-pound industry but studies into how well it works have given conflicting results.

Faced with the tantalising prospect that simple puzzles of maths, memory and logic could keep the mind sharp into old age - and even help stave off dementia - the researchers sought to come up with a definitive answer.

Working with the BBC's Bang Goes The Theory programme, more than 11,000 healthy men and women aged between 18 and 60 were set a battery of highly-sensitive memory tests.

Some were then given a series of brain training games to play for at least ten minutes a day, three times a week. The others were set general knowledge questions and asked to find the answers by surfing the internet. After six weeks, they re-took the initial memory tests.

The results, published in the prestigious journal Nature, showed that those who simply surfed the internet did just as well - if not better.

Dr Clive Ballard, of the Alzheimer's Society, said: 'This evidence could change the way we look at brain training games and shows staying active by taking a walk, for example, is a better use of our time.'

SOURCE





20 April, 2010

British health boss ambushed by furious NHS worker over Labour's broken promises

Health secretary Andy Burnham was today ambushed by an angry hospital worker who accused him of breaking Labour promises to slash the number of bureaucrats in the NHS. Margaret Roberts, who works at Trafford Hospital, castigated Mr Burnham for standing by while chief executives in the NHS enjoyed huge pay rises last year - double that of nurses.

Speaking at a conference of the Unison union in Brighton, she told him that staff shortages across the NHS were having a devastating effect on services - with doctors and nurses 'firefighting' to ensure safe care can be assured. She was cheered and clapped by hundreds of angry delegates, while a rattled Mr Burnham was jeered as he defended the number of managers and refused to guarantee that no doctors and nurses would lose their jobs after the election.

But he did admit it was unfair that NHS bosses were taking home so much money.

The issue has risen to the top of the agenda after it emerged last month that the number of NHS managers has soared six times quicker than the number of nurses. There are now 44,000 managers - almost double the number of midwives. This is despite promises by Tony Blair in 1997 to reduce the numbers of administrators.

And last week a report found that the pay of NHS chief executives rose by 6.9 per cent last year - compared to 2.75 per cent for nurses. There are now 25 bosses earning more than the prime minister.

The surge in managers comes as a survey of trusts found a third were planning to make doctors redundant after the election, and a quarter said there would be fewer nurses.

Mrs Roberts, an administrative worker at Trafford Healthcare NHS trust, first ambushed Mr Burnham at lunchtime during a photo opportunity with nurses outside the Brighton conference centre. To defuse the situation, he invited her to ask a question after his speech to the union.

Later, to cheers from the floor, she asked him: 'What are we going to do about reducing the numbers of managers in the Health Service which have grown phenomenally over the last few years - and their pay rises? 'Low staffing levels are becoming the norm in the Health Service because we can't recruit as a result of the uncertainty over whether people are going to have a job in 12 months' time. 'We are firefighting day in day out trying to deal with problems in the NHS.'

She went on: 'What assurances are you going to give us if you're returned to power, that you are going to change all those things that you said: less NHS managers, capping pay rises for chief executives. 'You're not telling us what you're going to cap them at. Even if it's 2 per cent, it's a damned sight more than our members will get.'

To jeering, Mr Burnham said: 'Let's remember that the NHS is a much-expanded system these days and it needs good management. 'Hospital trusts and PCTs are some of the most complex organisations that we have.'

But he promised to cut management costs by 30 per cent, and conceded that pay for senior managers was too high. 'If people don't see fairness then they look at their own organisations, then that will damage the sense of common cause that we need if we are to build a great NHS ,' he said.

On frontline jobs, he refused to give a guarantee that none would be cut. 'It wouldn't be right for me to say there won't be difficult choices ahead,' he said.

'I don't want to see any situation where staffing levels fall to dangerously low levels - but I can tell you now that I will work to help us through the challenging times as best we can.'

Mr Burnham also pledged not to reform the gold-plated NHS pension scheme, which the Tories and the Lib Dems have both pledged to cut to ensure more taxpayers' money can be diverted to patient care.

SOURCE



Another incompetent Third World doctor in the NHS

Doctor 'removed patient's testicle by accident' (!).

The NHS is so desperate to get anybody to work in their shambles of a system that they will grab anybody with the slightest pretensions to competence

A doctor accidentally cut off a patient's testicle during an operation, a medical watchdog was told. Dr Sulieman Ahmad Sulieman Al Hourani looked 'surprised' after removing the right testicle instead of a cyst that was in the testis, the General Medical Council heard.

Dr Hourani was working as a surgical locum at Fairfield General Hospital in Bury when the incident happened in September 2007.

Sarah Pritchard, for the GMC, told the panel: "The theatre staff will tell the panel that their impression is that Dr Hourani had mistakenly removed the testicle rather than the cyst. "They describe him looking quite surprised when he had in his hand the testicle rather than that the patient had consented for it."

The panel, who will decide if the doctor's fitness to practice is impaired due to misconduct, heard how throughout the procedure Dr Hourani didn't raise any issues about why he was removing the testis rather than the cyst. Neither did he check the patient's notes or an earlier ultrasound scan, ask advice from senior colleagues or conduct a biopsy.

Ms Pritchard added: "That conduct was unacceptable. There were various other options that could and should have taken place and that the surgeon could and should have considered before removing the testis."

Dr Hourani, who studied at university in Jordan and is now practising in Jordan, also allegedly injected himself with a sedative while on duty at Fairfield hospital.

The panel heard that Dr Hourani, who worked at the hospital from September 2005 to June 2008, injected a patient with eight mg of a 10 mg dose of midazolam and put the remainder in his pocket.

On the day of the incident in August 2006 junior sister Lynn Crooks told the panel she saw Dr Hourani looking unsteady on his feet before later finding him in a treatment room syringe in his hand. She told the panel: "He was sweating quite profusely and he wasn't his usual self. "I told him I didn't think he was well and asked him to come out of the room."

Dr Hourani then left the area and was later found by Ms Crooks deeply asleep in the doctors' mess room and she took him to casualty.

During a hospital investigation Dr Hourani said he suffered from anxiety but had none of his own medication and when he found the midazolam in his pocket he used that, however he acknowledged his actions had affected the quality of patient care.

The investigation found evidence of gross misconduct and Dr Hourani was given a final written warning. [How tough can you get! A real warning!]

The panel has also heard allegations that Dr Hourani stole two boxes of the pain relief drug dihydrocodeine from the hospital in October 2007. He was subjected to an investigation and was dismissed by employers Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

SOURCE



NEW EU GESTAPO SPIES ON BRITONS

MILLIONS of Britons face being snooped on by a new European intelligence agency which has been handed frightening powers to pry into our lives. Europol can access personal information on anyone – including their political opinions and sexual preferences – if it suspects, rightly or wrongly, that they may be involved in any “preparatory act” which could lead to criminal activity.

The vagueness of the Hague-based force’s remit sparked furious protests yesterday with critics warning that the EU snoopers threaten our right to free speech. It is understood the agency will concentrate on anyone thought “xenophobic” or likely to commit a crime involving the environment, computers or motor vehicles.

This could include covert monitoring of people who deny the existence of climate change or speak out on controversial issues.

Paul Nuttall, chairman of the UK Independence Party, said: “I am horrified. We thought Gordon Brown’s Big Brother state was bad enough but at least we are going to kick him out in May. These guys we cannot sack until we leave the EU.”

James Welch, legal director of campaign group Liberty, said: “We have huge concerns that Europol appears to have been given powers to hold very sensitive information and to investigate matters that aren’t even crimes in this country. Any extension of police powers at any level needs to be properly debated and scrutinised.”

Until January 1, Europol was a police office funded by various states to help tackle international organised crime. But it has been reborn as the official criminal intelligence-gathering arm of the EU and Brussels has vastly increased its powers. It can now target more than simply organised crime and the burden of proof required to begin monitoring an individual has been downgraded.

Europol has also been absorbed into the EU superstructure, so it will be centrally funded, sweeping away a key check on its independence.

Campaigners last night expressed concern over the vague list of “serious crimes” which the agency can help investigate, which include racism and xenophobia, environmental crime and corruption. Among personal details that can be gathered and stored are “behavioural data” including “lifestyle and routine; movements; places frequented”, tax position and profiles of DNA and voice. Where relevant, Europol will also be able to keep data on a person’s “political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade union membership and data concerning health or sex life”.

Sean Gabb, director of the Libertarian Alliance, warned that it threatened our right to free speech. “It doesn’t surprise me that Europol has been handed these rather frightening powers,” he said. “We now live in a pan-European state so it was to be expected that it would have a federal police force with powers over us. “There is a real danger that opposition to EU policies could make an individual liable to arrest.

“For example, if Brussels adopts a hard-line stance on climate change, it’s conceivable that someone who broadcasts their scepticism of climate change may be accused of committing an environmental crime because they have undermined the EU’s efforts to save mankind.”

Timothy Kirkhope, Conservative leader in the European Parliament, said: “Europol’s new mandate has significantly expanded its powers. “There is a real chance that the vague mandate will enable it to gradually extend its areas of intervention even further.”

The Home Office insisted the changes were in Britain’s interests. A spokesman said: “Europol is now in a much stronger position to better support our fight against serious and organised crime and terrorism.”

SOURCE



Hunting good for wildlife

Hunters have always said this but now Greenies are starting to realize its truth

The book, called Silent Summer, makes for some grim reading. Farmland birds, brown hares, water voles and many butterflies and other insects are in decline because of changing farming practices and loss of habitat, it says.

There are, however, some success stories. The otter, which between 1957 and the Seventies disappeared from 94 per cent of its habitats, is now back at more than a third of those sites, thanks to a special conservation programme.

And, controversially, the book credits field sports with helping to conserve several species, saying activities like hunting and shooting are "almost universally good" for the hunted species and many other species living in the same habitats.

The 600-page book was written by a team of experts and edited by Professor Emeritus Norman Maclean, of Southampton University's School of Biological Sciences, and a leading UK authority on fish genetics and genomics.

The book records how some farmland birds, including the skylark, have seen their population fall by more than half in recent decades. Farmland birds are a key government barometer for measuring the countryside's health.

Other species, including the yellow hammer, turtle dove, grey partridge, willow tit, spotted flycatcher, wood warbler and pied flycatcher are also in serious decline.

Robert Robinson of the British Trust for Ornithology says in the book that half the 220 bird species in Britain and Ireland " are of conservation concern". Climate change is a threat but deterioration and loss of habitat is a bigger problem, he says.

The dramatic fall in insect populations in the past 20 years has had a knock-on effects for other animals, especially birds and mammals. British butterflies in trouble include the Large Heath, Duke of Burgundy and Lulworth Skipper.

The brown hare, which has been in decline in the UK since the 1960s, has suffered from an increase in the number of predators – mainly foxes – and loss of cover, according to the book. There are an estimated 800,000 hares in the UK and although not rare or endangered, the mammal is one of the Government's priority species for conservation.

In addition to the otter, other species that have benefited from targeted measures include the buzzard – up by over 50 per cent – and the red kite, which was on the brink of extinction and now boasts a population of 1,000 breeding pairs in the UK. Sea birds are flourishing and badgers, helped by strict legal protection, have seen their numbers rise to more than 300,000.

Prof Maclean told The Sunday Telegraph: "The book is like a Domesday Book of British wildlife. There are serious concerns about many species of birds and insects. The problem is chiefly man-made and the solutions can be man-made too.

"But the picture is mixed. The evidence suggests that targeted conservation campaigns work. We have to protect the species in danger because so many other species depend on them for survival.

"And we should also protect them because wildlife is important to our quality of life."

Sir David Attenborough says in the book's foreword: "This book... gives us a benchmark. It is invaluable now and in the future it will be irreplaceable."

The book highlights the importance of field sports to the wellbeing of wildlife. Robin Sharp, Chair Emeritus of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, says that "field sports ... have been almost universally good for the hunted species and the non-hunted, non-predators that thrive in the same habitat".

Prof Sharp praises foxhunting and reveals that 86 per cent of woodland managed for hunting had vegetation cover – important for other species – compared with just 64 per cent in unmanaged woodland.

Managed areas also had an average of four more plant species, greater plant diversity and more butterfly species than unmanaged areas.

Prof Sharp also reports on a study of three areas in central England which found that all owners of land used for hunting and shooting had planted new woodland, compared with only 30 per cent of landowners who did not host hunts or shoots.

"This suggests that those who hunt and / or shoot provide significant conservation benefits," he said.

Prof Sharp calls on hunters and shooters to make more effort to explain the benefits of their activities to conservationists, policy-makers and the public.

"Overwhelmingly the target species for field sports have fared well over the last century ... More game-keeping, game crops and habitat management would undoubtedly achieve even more."

SOURCE



Climategate: a scandal that won’t go away

From Macbeth to Watergate, it’s not the act that leads to nemesis, but the attempts to 'trammel up the consequence’ , writes Christopher Booker.

If you were faced with by far the biggest bill of your life, would you not want to be confident that there was a very good reason why you should pay it? That is why we need to know just how far we can trust the science behind the official view that the world is threatened with catastrophe by global warming – because the measures proposed by our politicians to avert this supposed disaster threaten to transform our way of life out of recognition and to land us with easily the biggest bill in history. (The Climate Change Act alone, says the Government, will cost us all £18 billion every year until 2050.)

Yet in recent months, as we know, the official science on which all this rests has taken quite a hammering. Confronted with all those scandals surrounding the “Climategate” emails and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the political and academic establishments have responded with a series of inquiries and statements designed to show that the methods used to construct the official scientific case are wholly sound. But as was illustrated last week by two very different reports, these efforts to hold the line are themselves so demonstrably flawed that they are in danger of backfiring, leaving the science more questionable than ever.

The first report centred directly on the IPCC itself. When several of the more alarmist claims in its most recent 2007 report were revealed to be wrong and without any scientific foundation, the official response, not least from the IPCC’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was to claim that everything in its report was “peer-reviewed”, having been confirmed by independent experts.

But a new study put this claim to the test. A team of 40 researchers from 12 countries, led by a Canadian analyst Donna Laframboise, checked out every one of the 18,531 scientific sources cited in the mammoth 2007 report. Astonishingly, they found that nearly a third of them – 5,587 – were not peer-reviewed at all, but came from newspaper articles, student theses, even propaganda leaflets and press releases put out by green activists and lobby groups.

In its own way even more damaging, however, was the report from a team led by Lord Oxburgh on the scientific integrity of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Two sets of evidence have been used more than anything else to drive the worldwide scare over global warming. One is a series of graphs showing how temperatures have suddenly shot up in recent decades to levels historically unprecedented. The other is the official record of global surface temperatures. For both of these, the CRU and the key group of top British and American scientists involved in those Climategate emails have been crucially responsible.

Lord Oxburgh himself is linked to various commercial interests which make money from climate change, from wind farms to carbon trading. None of the panel he worked with on his report were climate “sceptics”; and one, Dr Kerry Emanuel, is an outspoken advocate of man-made global warming. Even so, it was surprising to see just how superficial their inquiry turned out to be, based on two brief visits to the CRU and on reading 11 scientific papers produced by the research unit in the past 24 years, chosen in consultation with the Royal Society (which is itself fanatical in promotion of warming orthodoxy).

The crown jewels of the IPCC’s case that the world faces catastrophic warming have been all those graphs based on tree rings which purport to show that temperatures have lately been soaring to levels never known before in history – thus eradicating all the evidence that the world was hotter than today during the Medieval Warm Period, long before any rise in CO2 levels. Best known of these graphs, of course, was Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”, comprehensively discredited by the expert Canadian statistician Stephen McIntyre and Professor Ross McKitrick. But the IPCC was able to defend its case with the aid of another set of “hockey sticks”, based on different tree rings, produced by Mann’s close allies at the CRU.

The most widely quoted of the Climategate emails was that from the CRU’s director, Philip Jones, saying that he had used “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”. If there was anything in the CRU’s record which a proper inquiry should have addressed it was the story behind this email, because what it highlighted was the device used by the CRU to get round the fact that its tree-ring data hopelessly failed to show the result the warmist establishment wanted. When their Siberian tree rings showed temperatures in the late 20th century sharply dropping rather than rising, the “trick” used by Prof Jones and his colleague Dr Keith Briffa, copied from Mike Mann’s own “hockey stick”, was simply to delete the downward curve shown by the tree rings, replacing them with late 20th-century temperature data to show the dramatic warming they wanted.

The significance of this sleight of hand can scarcely be exaggerated. Why, in using this misleading graph, did the IPCC not explain the trick that had been played by its leading scientists? If tree rings were so inadequate in reflecting 20th-century temperatures, why should they be relied on to reflect temperatures in earlier centuries? Why, when fresh Siberian tree ring data came to light, making a nonsense of the CRU’s earlier temperature reconstructions, did the CRU simply ignore the new data?

Anyone who has followed the meticulous analysis of this curious story by Steve McIntyre on his Climate Audit website might well conclude that we are looking here at a complete travesty of proper scientific procedure, matched only by the bizarre methods used by Mann himself to construct his original hockey stick. Yet these are the men, Mann, Jones and Briffa, who acted as the “lead authors” of the key chapters of the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 reports.

They quite shamelessly promoted the rewriting of history produced by themselves and a small group of colleagues – the so-called Hockey Team – which the IPCC in turn used as its main evidence to convince the politicians that the world faces unprecedented warming.

Yet scarcely a hint of this hugely important story is contained in the Oxburgh report, which simply glosses it over, hoping to appease critics by throwing in a few vaguely critical comments about how Jones and his team were a trifle “disorganised” in archiving their data. It ignores the utterly damning critiques of the CRU’s methodology produced by McIntyre and McKitrick. It does not even begin to question the way the CRU has compiled its global temperature record, relied on by the IPCC as the most authoritative of all the official data sources for surface temperatures.

Yet this in turn has given rise to all sorts of controversies, not least when Prof Jones last year admitted that much of his data had been “lost” (following his repeated refusals of applications to see it by McIntyre and others). More damaging still was the charge by senior Russian scientists that, in compiling its global record, CRU had cherry-picked the data supplied from Russia, suppressing that from most of the country while retaining the data from the vicinity of cities which, thanks to the “urban heat island” effect, showed a warming trend. So even the accuracy of CRU’s temperature record has been called seriously in doubt, although one would never have guessed it from Oxburgh.

As is reflected in so many political tragedies, from Macbeth to Watergate, it is often not the original dark act itself which leads to nemesis but the later attempts to “trammel up the consequence”. Nothing will do more to reinforce suspicion of the CRU’s conduct than the failure, first by those MPs, and now by the team led by Lord Oxburgh, to address properly the way in which it appears to have abused the principles of true science – a scandal which should be of concern not just to us here in Britain, who paid for it, but across the world.

SOURCE



Another needless and expensive panic from the British Met office

Remind you of anything? There have now been many test flights through the "danger" zone that were unscathed by volcanic output so we once again have models that don't reflect reality

The Met Office has been blamed for triggering the “unnecessary” six-day closure of British airspace which has cost airlines, passengers and the economy more than £1.5 billion.

The government agency was accused of using a scientific model based on “probability” rather than fact to forecast the spread of the volcanic ash cloud that made Europe a no-fly zone and ruined the plans of more than 2.5 million travellers in and out of Britain.

A senior European official said there was no clear scientific evidence behind the model, which air traffic control services used to justify the unprecedented shutdown.

Eleven major British airlines joined forces last night to publicly criticise Nats, the air traffic control centre, over the way it interpreted the Met Office’s “very limited empirical data”.

Legal experts suggested passengers and airlines may be able to sue the Government for more than £1?billion in compensation. Flights in and out of Britain are scheduled to resume today for the first time in almost a week after Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, said there had been a “dramatic decrease” in the volcano’s activity.

Airports in Scotland and the north of England will be the first to open, followed by those in the Midlands and then in the south of England by 6pm.

However, it has been estimated that the travel backlog could take up to a fortnight to clear.

British airspace was shut for the first time in history last Thursday amid fears that the volcanic ash from Iceland could get sucked into jet engines and cause them to malfunction.

The announcement last night that restrictions would be eased was accompanied by arguments over whether the shutdown had been an over-reaction.

Much of the blame was directed at the Met Office’s Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC). It provided the initial warning, which triggered the European-wide ban via Eurocontrol, the air traffic control centre in Brussels.

Matthias Ruete, the European Commission’s director-general of transport, said air traffic authorities should not have relied on a single source of scientific evidence before imposing the widespread ban. He suggested the no-fly zone should have been restricted to a 20 to 30-mile limit around the volcano. “The science behind the model we are running at the moment is based on certain assumptions where we do not have clear scientific evidence,” he said.

“We don’t even know what density the cloud should be in order to affect jet engines. We have a model that runs on mathematical projections.

It is probability rather than actual things happening.”

Mr Ruete said the commission had to intervene to allow airlines to make test flights in order to check the VAAC data “to help us move on from the mathematical model”.

Of the 40 test flights across Europe, including a British Airways flight on Sunday, none found any evidence of ash in jet engines, windows or lubrication systems.

In a joint letter to Lord Adonis, the 11 British airlines said the official response to the volcanic eruption presented “a clear case for government compensation”.

Jeff Zindani, of Forum Law solicitors, said: “Legal analysis suggests that there may be a raft of class actions brought by airlines and companies that are dependent on air travel to move their goods.

“This may well open the way for wider litigation against the Met Office and other government agencies who are found to have failed in their duty of care. The damages and legal costs could break the £1billion mark.”

Andy Harrison, the chief executive of easyJet, said the cost could run into “hundreds of millions of pounds”.

The International Air Transport Association (Iata), the airline industry trade body, also criticised the decision to close airspace based on theoretical modelling of the ash cloud.

“These decisions have been taken without adequately consulting the airlines. This is not an acceptable system particularly when the consequences for safety and the economy are so large,” said Giovanni Bisignani, the organisation’s director general.

He said the £1?billion cost to the aviation industry could be attributed to lost revenue, repatriation, refunds and the cost of supporting stranded passengers. The cost to the wider British economy has been estimated at £500? million.

British Airways announced it planned to begin flying from London from 4pm after Willie Walsh, its chief executive, said the blanket ban had been “unnecessary”. Virgin Atlantic said it hoped to operate flights from London from 7pm.

Mr Walsh was one of the 11 signatories of the letter to Lord Adonis. It said: “We remain concerned that the approach taken by Nats has been too sweeping.” Warning of “long-term damage” to the industry, it added: “We believe that the nature of this natural disaster presents a clear case for government compensation. The closure of airspace is an uninsurable event and thus not a risk that airlines can reasonably be expected to bear.”

David Greene, the head of litigation at Edwin Coe, said legal action was more likely to be successful if taken by a large group of tourists and companies in a class action.

SOURCE



England branded least patriotic nation in Europe as citizens are too scared to fly the flag



The English rate themselves the least patriotic nation in Europe, a poll suggests. Almost half said their country had lost its identity in the face of European interference and political correctness.

The findings were published in advance of St George’s Day which, as two thirds of those polled did not know, is on April 23 – this Friday.

They showed that on average, English people rate their patriotism at slightly below six on a scale out of ten, behind the Scots, Welsh and Irish and far in the wake of the Dutch, the most patriotic people on the continent.

Only one in ten would happily fly the cross of St George to celebrate the national saint’s day. Double that number said they thought they would be told by authorities to remove it if they flew it from their house.

Despite calls from public figures ranging from Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu to Gordon Brown for more celebrations of the English national day, there has been clear disapproval from many public authorities.

In 2008 St George's Day parades were banned by local authorities in Bradford and Sandwell in the West Midlands on the grounds they could cause trouble or were 'unhealthy' and 'tribal'.

Last year Mr Brown's instruction that public buildings in England should fly the flag on 23 April were undermined by the production of a European map drawn up in Brussels that wiped England off altogether and replaced the country with a series of EU regions.

One in 10 of the English are happy to fly the flag, compared with one in three Dutch people willing to fly their own tricolor. More than one in four English people said they feared being branded racist, but four out of 10 said they would happily express their national pride behind closed doors. Four out of 10 said they felt England had completely lost its national identity.

The same number said the only time they felt a real sense of patriotism was during big sporting events or competitions, with 53 per cent claiming the World Cup was the main spark, followed by the Olympics. However, three out of ten said they felt waves of patriotism in the wake of terrorist atrocities in our towns and cities.

While English people put their patriotism at 5.8 out of 10, Scots ranked their patriotism at 7.1, the Welsh at 7.06 and the Irish at 6.72.

The Dutch were the most patriotic European country at 7.18, while the French scored 6.44 and the Germans ranked their love of country just ahead of the English at 5.81.

SOURCE





19 April, 2010

The public purse is being abused

NHS budgets are being valued over patient welfare

Since the recession kicked in, I've witnessed its impact first hand. There are the patients who come in to A&E desperate and suicidal having lost their job, and facing financial ruin and uncertain futures. They've told me about having their houses repossessed; about their families splitting up as temporary accommodation is found; about bailiffs knocking on the door.

But I've also seen the effects on a personal level, with friends unceremoniously made redundant from jobs they'd worked hard to get. Several of them – intelligent, well-qualified and personable – have been unable to find work for over a year. They spend their days sending off application forms – never to have them acknowledged.

It's important that those of us in the public sector remember those who do not and behave with according humility. Yet there is a new breed of public servant with a pay package more akin to that of a city fat cat but who does not have any of the risk or share-holder accountability associated with the private sector. I'm ashamed to say, this includes many in the NHS. An Incomes Data Services report into pay in 380 trusts published last week found that senior NHS managers typically earned nearly £150,000 a year. While the country was struggling through a recession in 2008-2009, managers in the NHS received an average pay rise of 7 per cent. This came on top of a 6.4 per cent rise the previous year. In contrast, nurses received less than 3 per cent.

The chief executive of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, is paid £270,000 while at Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, the chief executive received £237,500. These are phenomenal wages. The Department of Health has attempted to deflect blame by arguing that trusts are independent organisations that set their own levels of senior pay. But this money comes from our taxes and therefore, ultimately, the Government is responsible for what it is spent on.

As stockbrokers, estate agents and retailers will tell you, something is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Yet this cannot be applied to the pubic sector. While taxpayers pay for NHS managers, we have no say in how much they are paid or in what we think they are worth.

I accept that senior managers merit a decent salary and that the best candidates need to be attracted to these positions. But some pay deals are extraordinary and out of line with the salaries of even the highest-paid clinical staff. The same need to attract and retain the best people applies to front-line staff, too – those with decades of training who must make life-and-death decisions about others – and yet for them there is no prospect of such exorbitant salaries.

Chief executives are responsible for multi-million pound budgets but nurses, for example, are responsible for the lives of patients. So are we saying that we value budgets over patient welfare? I think this is emblematic of the shift in emphasis in health-care that in recent years, whereby hospitals are increasingly seen as revenue-generating business rather than places that serve the health needs of the local community. So business acumen is valued over clinical skill.

While there is a threat to front- line services because of the economic downturn, I fail to see how such a lack of restraint in salaries can be justified. I'm embarrassed and ashamed to be working in an organisation where people at the top are abusing the public purse in this way.

SOURCE



Some fiery comments from Judith Curry

Prof. Curry is a moderate Warmist and is commenting below on Lord Oxburgh's whitewash of "Climategate"

The primary frustration with these investigations is that they are dancing around the principal issue that people care about: the IPCC and its implications for policy. Focusing only on CRU activities (which was the charge of the Oxbourgh panel) is of interest mainly to UEA and possibly the politics of UK research funding (it will be interesting to see if the U.S. DOE sends any more $$ to CRU).

Given their selection of CRU research publications to investigate (see Bishop Hill), the Oxbourgh investigation has little credibility in my opinion. However, I still think it unlikely that actual scientific malfeasance is present in any of these papers: there is no malfeasance associated with sloppy record keeping, making shaky assumptions, and using inappropriate statistical methods in a published scientific journal article.

The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue. The assessment process should filter out erroneous papers and provide a broader assessment of uncertainty; instead, we have seen evidence of IPCC lead authors pushing their own research results and writing papers to support an established narrative. I don't see much hope for improving the IPCC process under its current leadership.

The historical temperature record and the paleoclimate record over the last millennium are important in many many aspects of climate research and in the communication of climate change to the public; both of these data sets are at the heart of the CRU email controversy.

In my opinion, there needs to be a new independent effort to produce a global historical surface temperature dataset that is transparent and that includes expertise in statistics and computational science. Once "best" methods have been developed and assessed for assembling such a dataset including uncertainty estimates, a paleoclimate reconstruction should be attempted (regional, hemispheric, and possibly global) with the appropriate uncertainty estimates.

The public has lost confidence in the data sets produced by CRU, NASA, Penn State, etc. While such an independent effort may confirm the previous analysies, it is very likely that improvements will be made and more credible uncertainty estimates can be determined.

And the possibility remains that there are significant problems with these datasets; this simply needs to be sorted out. Unfortunately, the who and how of actually sorting all this out is not obvious. Some efforts are underway in the blogosphere to examine the historical land surface data (e.g. such as GHCN), but even the GHCN data base has numerous inadequacies. Addressing the issues associated with the historical and paleo temperature records should be paramount.

SOURCE. For follow-up to her comments, see here



Immigration – the subject no mainstream British politician wants to talk about

Outside Lincoln station a taxi driver improbably claiming his name is Richard Wobblegob says: “Honesty, that’s what we want. A bit of honesty.” He’s sick of politicians, the slippery, grasping lot of ’em. Wobblegob is clear about one thing, though: he won’t vote Labour any more. “They’re lying bastards. And I wouldn’t vote Conservative. Don’t trust them, they’re not for the working man. Think I might go for UKIP.”

After feckless MPs and economic shambles, Wobblegob’s concern is immigration — and UKIP’s stance on the subject is pretty clear. It doesn’t want any, at least not for five years. Nor do the English Democrats or the BNP, who also have candidates standing in Lincoln.

For the past two elections, immigration has been the issue that dare not speak its name. Anyone questioning the number of people coming to live in Britain was crudely accused by Labour of racism; the Tories, fearing rivers of electoral blood, ran scared.

Yet it is an issue the public wants debated. Today’s Sunday Times/YouGov poll shows that 53% of people believe there has not been enough discussion of immigration in the campaign so far. And 76% believe the number of immigrants coming to Britain is “far too high”.

In many ways Lincoln, which has mirrored the national result in elections since 1974, is an island within an island. Moated by fenland, it has a castle and cathedral on a hill, with attendant twee shops and ye olde Primark and Fat Face in a smart shopping centre. Further out lie tattered estates of Victorian terraces.

There isn’t an investment banker for miles. Instead, low-paid agricultural and processing work predominates, pulling in thousands of migrants from eastern Europe. Are they a boon or a problem? What do the locals think?

The first person I approach in the high street is a dark-haired young woman in sunglasses and black jeans, accessorised with an infant in an all-terrain buggy. Will you be voting in the election, I ask?

“Zorry. No spik Inglis. Rushan,” she says. She’s from Latvia. Nearby is Pete, supervisor of the local public conveniences. He’s worried about Gordon Brown spraying money all over the place, partly on migrants.

“I’m not opposed to people from abroad. If they come to work here, that’s all right,” he says. “It’s those that come across and sprout at taxpayers’ expense that are a problem. Why should they be allowed to do that?”

Others suspect the influx of eastern Europeans has depressed wages and snaffled jobs. The obvious person to ask is a young blonde woman hovering outside the Staffline employment agency. Are immigrants taking jobs from locals?

“I don’t know,” says Sandra, 19. “I’m from Lithuania.” Turns out she’s the receptionist in the employment agency. She works five days a week there, does two days waitressing and studies animation in her spare time. The British, largely unacquainted with pay rates in Vilnius, are not keen to compete.

At Richardson’s second-hand car lot, in the poorer end of town, a twentysomething called Simon is attending to a silver Vauxhall. He’s in little doubt about the impact of migrants: “It’s got to affect some people, some jobs. Supply and demand, innit.”

Is he going to vote? “Possibly. Possibly Tories. I’ve had enough of Labour.”

Then this Mr Ordinary Bloke, with no obvious tattoos or mental deficiencies, says without any prompting: “Or we could all vote BNP. I’d be happy to vote for them. Everyone’s so p***** off it makes the BNP worth voting for.”

Labour has itself to blame for the suppuration of such sentiments. Official figures show that it let immigration rip once it took power. In the early 1990s, long-term net immigration rarely rose above 50,000 a year but in 1998, after Labour’s first year in office, it leapt to 140,000 and hit 174,000 in 2001. It peaked at 245,000 a year before falling slightly. The latest figures show that 590,000 people arrived to live in Britain in 2008; net immigration only fell to 163,000 because 427,000 other people emigrated.

Since 1997 about 3m immigrants have arrived and the population is now 61m. The Office for National Statistics projects that the population will go on rising to 70m, with 70% of the increase caused by immigration.

Beneath the headline figures, the make-up of the country is rapidly changing. In 2008, for example, many more British citizens emigrated than returned to the UK, and many more EU, Commonwealth and other foreign nationals arrived than left. More than 500,000 arrivals in 2008 were non- British citizens.

The impacts are hotly disputed. For years Labour claimed migrants brought economic benefits. More people plus more work generally means the overall economy grows. But is anyone better off after taking into account the increase in population?

According to a recent study by Oxford Economics, GDP per capita did rise during Labour’s first two terms, but it fell in the third. GDP per capita is now lower in real terms than in 2005. Even The Economist, a fan of cheap and mobile labour, concluded last week that “there is little sign that wealth per person increased much” as a result of immigration.

The rise in the number of foreign-born people has almost matched the rise in the number of jobs, according to some calculations, leading to claims that 98% of new jobs have gone to migrants. Although this is disputed, the Trades Union Congress concedes that 50% of jobs created since 1997 have probably gone to non-UK nationals.

Services have also come under pressure in areas with large numbers of new arrivals. Council leaders in Slough, Peterborough and Boston have complained that local budgets and amenities are under “enormous strain” because official figures do not reflect their real populations.

Doctors, hospitals and schools all face challenges. In more than 300 primary schools, 70% of pupils have English as a second language, according to Migrationwatch UK, a group that campaigns for greater control of immigration.

In January two independent councillors from Peterborough wrote to Gordon Brown expressing their concerns over the pressure on schools in their area. They received no reply.

The election candidates in Lincoln gathered on Wednesday evening for a public debate at a hotel on the outskirts of town. After skirmishes over local measures, the meeting burst into life with a question on immigration. What should be done about it?

The UKIP candidate, Nick Smith, at least had the merit of honesty; at one point he likened himself to a “prat”. Nevertheless, he won applause from a minority for wanting to freeze immigration.

The English Democrats candidate, Ernest Charles, had a rum-barrel chest and Pugwash beard and, even before he announced it, you knew he had spent 36 years in the Royal Navy. When ill-informed on a topic (not uncommon) his policy was straightforward: repel immigrants. He’d scuttle the country rather than let it fall into enemy hands. More applause from the minority.

The Liberal Democrat, Reginald Shore, was a likeable man with good intentions and a policy spun from 100% pure new wool. He was very definitely for and against immigration, under certain circumstances, up to a point.

With the BNP absent, that left Gillian Merron, the sitting Labour MP, and her rival Karl McCartney of the Conservatives. Merron, an MP since 1997 and a minister since 2006, has been part of the government that presided over record immigration. All she could do was bluster about Labour’s belated attempts at control being “firm but fair”, as Brown himself did in Thursday’s television debate.

By contrast, McCartney was able to sound clear on this issue. “The Conservative party has said there will be a limit on immigrants,” he said. Not a ban, a limit. It seemed to get general approval.

In a seat the Tories should capture with a 4.8% swing, McCartney ought to be a winner, even though he has something of the 1980s night about him — a hint of estate agency, perhaps — that seems to make floating voters suspicious. Will the fringe parties detract from the Conservative vote, especially on immigration?

It’s not that simple, according to Colin Rallings of Portsmouth University. Yes, UKIP does tend to take votes from the Tories, but at the same time the BNP often takes votes from disaffected working-class Labour supporters. Both main parties are likely to be squeezed by fringe groups, with neither gaining a clear advantage.

Since both the Conservatives and Labour, it seems, are happy to avoid campaigning on immigration, Wobblegob may have to wait for his honesty. Once again immigration may end up the big issue the main parties would prefer to ignore.

Source



Europe on path to tyranny, Church of England warns

The Church of England has accused the European Union of neglecting its Christian heritage and warned that it is at risk of creating "secular tyranny". In a hard-hitting report on the failures of officials in Brussels, the church says Europe has been left "more uncertain of its future and more mistrusted by its citizens than ever before".

Commissioned by the church's bishops, the document argues the European Parliament is suffering from a "democratic deficit" and expresses concern that the continent faces "a perfect storm".

It is critical of the way that politicians have marginalised Christianity and calls on them to build a more united society by promoting values that are influenced by religious principles.

The comments come as church leaders have stepped up their battle to defend the freedom of worshippers, with a former Archbishop of Canterbury last week attacking "disturbing" and "dangerous" rulings made by judges in religious discrimination cases in Britain.

Lord Carey was intervening in a case being brought by a Christian relationship counsellor who wants a special panel of five senior judges to hear his appeal against being sacked for refusing to counsel homosexual couples.

The church report says the drive for inclusivity and equality has led to the playing down of key elements of the EU's history. "As secular organisations, in the pluralist world of the 21st century, the institutions of the EU can tend to take for granted or avoid aspects of Europe's Christian inheritance," it says.

"If the EU is to draw inspiration from its cultural, religious and humanist inheritance with integrity, it needs to be more at ease with its Christian history and to articulate this within a Europe that is spiritually hungry for its values to be substantial and life-giving. Most European politicians are reluctant to give emphasis to the fundamental connections between the Christian faith and the values of the contemporary European Union."

In 2004 fears were raised the EU was becoming more intolerant of Christians after Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian Catholic, was blocked from becoming European Commissioner because he followed the church's teaching on homosexuality. The European Constitution - signed in the same year, although never ratified - excluded all mention of God.

The church document says "for the majority of citizens Europe is becoming less united and more distant", pointing to the rapid inclusion of 200 million people as part of the union following the admittance of several eastern European countries.

The report marked the 60th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, the the European Coal and Steel Community accord which evolved into the EU.

SOURCE



Naughty British Mayoress

New arrivals in Britain from some countries -- particularly Muslim ones -- tend to be heavily welfare-dependant but you must not mention that

"A town mayor apologised yesterday after posting a joke on the internet comparing illegal immigrants to sperm because 'millions of them come in but only one works'. Sue Mills, 50, the Mayor of Torrington in Devon, posted the offensive joke on her Facebook page where it was seen by hundreds of people.

Several complaints were made about the offensive gag and Mrs Mills, who is also a district and town councillor, has now said sorry. She says she 'deeply regretted' making the joke...

One Torrington resident, who did not want to be named, said it was 'derogatory' and 'reflected badly on the town'. He said: 'I am just shocked that someone could write that given they are the mayor of the town.

'Even if this is a joke she needs to be reminded with freedom of speech comes responsibility. It reflects badly on Torrington that the mayor, in a prominent position, is expressing those views.'

Source

18 April, 2010

NHS bars woman after she saw private doctor

Pure, hate-filled socialism

A WOMAN has been denied an operation on the NHS after paying for a private consultation to deal with her severe back pain. Jenny Whitehead, a breast cancer survivor, paid £250 for an appointment with the orthopaedic surgeon after being told she would have to wait five months to see him on the NHS. He told her he would add her to his NHS waiting list for surgery.

She was barred from the list, however, and sent back to her GP. She must now find at least £10,000 for private surgery, or wait until the autumn for the NHS operation to remove a cyst on her spine.

“When I paid £250 to see the specialist privately I had no idea I would be sacrificing my right to surgery on the NHS. I feel victimised,” she said.

The case will reopen the debate over NHS policy towards patients who pay for some of their care privately. Following a Sunday Times campaign in 2008, the government ordered the NHS to stop withdrawing care from patients who received additional private treatment or drugs. Cancer sufferers were being barred from further NHS treatment after buying potentially life-saving medicines not offered by the health service.

Whitehead’s case, which has shocked her local Labour MP, reveals that patients who go private in despair at long waiting lists still risk jeopardising their NHS treatment. Department of Health officials admit it remains official policy.

Whitehead, 64, a former museum assistant from Yorkshire who works as a volunteer at a hospice, went to her GP in December for back pain. Because of her breast cancer history, she was immediately offered an MRI scan to check the disease had not returned. It revealed a cyst on her spine, pressing against her sciatic nerve. Her GP referred her to a consultant at Airedale NHS hospital. She was told the next available NHS appointment was in May, so she accepted the offer of a private slot to see him the following week.

“My husband and I are retired and don’t have a lot of money, but I am in intense pain and couldn’t face the thought of waiting months just for an initial consultation,” she said.

The specialist promised to add her to his NHS waiting list for surgery. After two months, however, hospital managers told her she had been barred from the waiting list because she had seen the surgeon privately. Now her only alternative to paying £10,000 privately is to go back to her GP, seek another referral to the same specialist, this time on the NHS, and face another 18-week wait.

“We will scratch together the money if we absolutely have to, but I feel it’s incredibly unfair,” said Whitehead. “I’ve paid full National Insurance contributions all my working life and feel I should get this operation on the NHS.”

Ann Cryer, who is standing down as Labour MP for Keighley, has written to the hospital urging it to reconsider. She told Whitehead that she had been “badly let down and ill advised”.

Bradford and Airedale NHS trust said it was looking into the case “as a matter of urgency” but added: “Anyone who chooses to pay for a private outpatient consultation cannot receive NHS treatment unless they are then referred on to an NHS pathway by their consultant.”

SOURCE



Edinburgh University’s Scottish bias may break race laws

THE admissions policy of a leading university might breach race relations laws because it favours Scottish applicants over those from England, according to one of the country’s most senior education lawyers.

Edinburgh University gives “additional weighting” to applicants for some courses depending on where they live, and favours those who come from the area around the Scottish capital.

In a formal legal opinion obtained by The Sunday Times, Oliver Hyams, a barrister at Devereux chambers in London, writes that the policy “might, depending on the facts, be directly discriminatory and therefore contrary to section 17 of the Race Relations Act 1976”. The opinion could open the way for candidates to take legal action if they believe they have been turned down because they are English, Welsh or Northern Irish.

Hyams, chairman of the Education Law Association, argues that Edinburgh’s criteria “put persons who are not of Scottish national origins at a particular disadvantage”.

The policy at Edinburgh, where 41% of the intake is English, was introduced in 2004 to give local applicants a greater chance of winning places.

In contrast with the Edinburgh admissions policy, Hyams believes Scottish universities are acting within the law by discriminating against English students in the level of fees charged.

Under Scottish law, British undergraduates from outside Scotland are charged £1,820 a year, while Scots and those from other European Union countries have fees paid by Holyrood. Although the British courts have ruled that the Race Relations Act applies to discrimination between the UK’s nations, these nations are not recognised by EU law.

Universities such as Birmingham, King’s College London and Glasgow run schemes that favour pupils from comprehensive schools in their region. However, schools in deprived areas are singled out, a policy that Hyams said could be justified. Edinburgh, by contrast, bases part of its decision purely on where an applicant lives. “I suspect that the area [favoured by Edinburgh] as a whole could not reasonably be called socially deprived,” writes Hyams.

Dennis Harding, former vice-principal and professor of archeology at Edinburgh, said: “I’d very much regret it if Edinburgh had a reputation for not accepting good students from English schools as I’d like to think of it as a top British university, not a parochial Scottish one.”

Edinburgh’s weighting applies to candidates for some humanities and social science courses from the area close to the university and in a second tier of regions including the rest of Scotland, Cumbria, Tyne and Wear and other parts of northern England.

Hyams believes a court could see Edinburgh’s inclusion of a few English regions as “a thinly disguised cloak for discrimination in favour of persons resident in Scotland”.

Edinburgh, ranked 15th in the Sunday Times University Guide, said the impact of the policy was only “minimal”, adding: “Without some way of acknowledging local applicants in selection, we would risk running some degree courses with barely any local, or Scottish, students on them.”

It said: “Previous consideration has given us no reason to think this approach falls foul of any anti-discriminatory legislation, but we will give further consideration to this question in the light of the comments made by Mr Hyams.”

The university’s policy has angered English head teachers. Richard Cairns, of Brighton college, East Sussex, said one of his pupils, Jo Saxby, had been rejected by Edinburgh without an interview despite being predicted to achieve three A*s and an A in his A-levels. He has been offered a place at Oxford.

Cairns, who this weekend is making a formal complaint about Edinburgh to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the university was “pandering to nationalist sentiment”.

Andrew Halls, of King’s college school in Wimbledon, southwest London, called the university’s policy “perverse, xenophobic and anti-English”. He added that only six out of 42 of his pupils who applied there had been offered places, a far lower success rate than at Bristol, Durham or Imperial College London.

Halls said: “It just so happens that all the boys offered places have Scottish surnames or ones that are very obviously foreign and not English. I’m sure it’s a coincidence.”

SOURCE



Voters’ Concerns on Immigration Influence British Electoral Campaign

The story below is from the NYT ("All the news that's fit to slant") but is mostly pretty fair. It says little of the deliberate policies of the Leftist government that have inflamed popular anger against immigrants but that's a story for another day

Few people in the working-class neighborhood of Barking seem willing to proclaim unalloyed enthusiasm for the ultra-right-wing, anti-immigration British Nationalist Party. But get past “hello” in any conversation and their feelings come spilling out.

“I’m not a racist, but they’re letting so many of them in,” complained Bill Greed, 66, speaking of foreigners. “They come and sign on for benefits. A lot of the children in schools don’t even speak English. There’s so many illegal ones that the government can’t even find all of them.” The B.N.P.? “I agree with what they’re saying, but not with how they go about it,” Mr. Greed said.

As they prepare for the national election on May 6, Britons everywhere identify immigration as one of their biggest concerns. But in few places is the issue so urgent, or the electoral choices so stark, as in the borough of Barking and Dagenham, on the eastern edge of London. With little support for the Tory or Liberal Democratic Parties here, the race is between the unpopular ruling Labour Party and an emboldened B.N.P. capitalizing on its rival’s weaknesses.

Once Barking and Dagenham were white, blue-collar bastions, with 40,000 people employed at a huge Ford factory. Now 35 percent of the residents are from ethnic minorities, up from 5 percent 10 years ago. The factory has given way to a diesel engine plant with one-tenth the work force. Unemployment stands at 8 percent.

The influx has put a serious strain on services, particularly housing. Mick W., a 20-year-old maintenance worker who did not want to give his last name because he is employed by the Borough Council, said his family waited a decade for decent public housing while immigrants with large families leapfrogged ahead.

“I don’t mind the ones who come and get a job,” he said, “but all they do is claim, claim, claim.” The B.N.P.? “I can’t see them running the country, but I support what they stand for.”

The B.N.P. says it stands for many things, but chief among them is an implacable belief that Britain belongs to indigenous white Britons. Until a judge struck down the provision last month, the party had a whites-only membership policy. It favors an immediate end to immigration and the repatriation of people of foreign descent.

In 2006, the party won 12 of the 51 seats on the Barking and Dagenham Council, its strongest showing anywhere in the country. This time, it hopes to secure 14 more seats, enough to take control of the council, its 300 million pound annual budget and its 9,300 employees. It is also working to unseat Margaret Hodge, the Labour stalwart who represents Barking in Parliament.

Ms. Hodge’s opponent is Nick Griffin, the B.N.P. leader. A well-dressed, well-spoken Cambridge law graduate, Mr. Griffin, 51, has denied that the Holocaust took place, and also said that Hitler “went a bit too far.” In 1998, he was convicted of distributing material likely to incite racial violence.

But in recent years Mr. Griffin has taken care to moderate his public statements as his party seeks mainstream electoral success. Last year, he was elected to the European Parliament from North West England.

In Barking, B.N.P. supporters are campaigning against Ms. Hodge by using her maiden name, Oppenheimer, apparently in a bid to court the anti-Semitic vote, and by falsely accusing her of supporting a fictitious plan that — the story goes — pays Africans to move in, presumably increasing Labour’s electoral base.

“It’s the most important election I’ve ever fought and the one I feel most passionate about,” Ms. Hodge said as she campaigned door to door last weekend. “I came into politics to fight racism, and the idea that these people could get a seat in Parliament or get control of a council is just against everything I stand for.”

In a place full of angry, disaffected voters, many of whom did not want to come to the door or who closed it upon discovering a politician was standing outside, her task was not easy.

Ms. Hodge tried to enumerate Labour’s achievements, but then changed tactics as she gauged the anti-government mood on the doorsteps. “It’s been a horrible time, but it’s a two-horse race here, I’m afraid,” she told one woman, who identified herself as a Tory sympathizer. “If you want to keep the B.N.P. out, you’re going to have to swallow hard and vote for us.”

Fears about immigration are echoed across Britain, where new arrivals have added to a leap in population in the last decade. In a country that is already among the most crowded in Europe, the prospect of even more growth inflames people’s fears at a time of financial crisis and worries about terrorism.

Concerns that immigrants are unfairly taking up public resources in such places as schools and hospitals have been aggravated by anti-government newspapers like the populist Daily Mail, which regularly publish articles that gnaw at public anxiety.

Earlier this month, for instance, The Mail reported on a hospital with employees from 70 countries who spoke such poor English, it said, that they had to take state-financed language classes. On Sunday, the paper reported that Muslim women who are hospital workers are being now allowed to cover their forearms because of religious modesty, in contravention of standard hygiene rules.

Perhaps belatedly, Labour is acknowledging how deeply voters feel about immigration. On Monday, it said it would require that all local government workers who deal with the public be able to speak English. In Dagenham, Meg Hillier, a fellow member of Parliament and a minister in the immigration office, was campaigning alongside Ms. Hodge, armed with a sheaf of information about Labour’s immigration policies.

“We deport someone every eight minutes,” Ms. Hillier said. “We fingerprint anyone who comes in for over six months. Foreigners now have to carry special national identity cards.”

Ms. Hillier said the government was not pandering to xenophobia, but responding to public concern. “People are allowed to have fears about immigration,” she said.

At the Barking Saturday market, where white faces mingle with brown and black ones, and where burka-shrouded forms glide past women in tank tops, 72-year-old Freda Shaw surveyed the scene last weekend and shook her head. “I don’t think the B.N.P. is the answer — they’re just racist,” she said. “But look — there’s not one white shop here. Where I live, you need a passport to get in.”

As it happened, Dominic Carman, the Liberal Democratic candidate for Parliament, was campaigning down the street. He has a single goal: to stop the B.N.P. “They’re the obvious beneficiary of the protest vote against the ineptitude and incompetence of Labour,” he said. “The B.N.P. are capitalizing on the problems here by blaming it all on immigration.”

Mr. Carman gestured at the market stalls, a cacophony of noises and odors and exotic goods from around the world. “The true spirit of multiculturalism is alive and well in this market,” he said. “This is what Nick Griffin wants to destroy.”

SOURCE



Evil British social workers again

"We're from the government and we're here to help you". Ronald Reagan rightly branded that for what it was in 1986: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language" (actually ten if you include "the")

A COUPLE have won a legal battle to prevent social workers taking their five-year-old son into care after the authorities claimed that his health had been damaged by a meat-and-dairy-free diet. Social services even tried to get police to investigate the family and threatened to seize the boy’s two older siblings during the two-year ordeal.

The parents, Ken and Marie, were forced to represent themselves in court after their legal aid was removed — simply because they had insisted on contesting the case.

Last week a family court judge removed an interim supervision order on the child previously obtained by social workers and ruled that he must be taken off the at-risk register.

“It has been a nightmare and we feel our experience should serve as a warning that the system is being used to try to break up innocent families,” said Marie, 40, a trainee aromatherapist from Lewisham in London.

Her words echo those of Lord Justice Wall, new head of the family courts, who said last week the eagerness of some social workers to take children into care was “quite shocking”.

The case is seen as another example of social services preferring to seize children rather than risk the type of bad publicity sparked by the case of Baby Peter, the toddler who died in 2007 after his plight was repeatedly overlooked.

Marie and Ken’s ordeal began in March 2008 when their son, then aged three, collapsed at home. Only after he was rushed to the Evelina children’s hospital in Waterloo, central London, was it discovered that he appeared to be suffering from rickets, with very low levels of vitamin D, zinc and iron. He also had a bronchial condition. Hospital doctors alerted Lewisham council because they believed the child’s condition was caused by malnutrition.

Social workers from the council alleged that the family’s diet, which included fish but no meat or dairy products, was the cause of the boy’s rickets and said it could put him in future danger. However, the rest of the family, including another boy, now 10, and a girl, now 8, were found to be fit and healthy despite sharing the same diet.

“They implied we had selectively starved one of our children,” said Marie, who asked for her son not to be named. “They twisted things, saying we were vegans even though we eat fish. We don’t eat dairy because asthma runs in the family and that can make it worse, but we are not vegans. I always gave the children extra vitamins, too.

“When the social workers found out that we home-educate our children, we were accused of being ‘unorthodox’, which made us even more suspicious in their eyes. “We were told by social workers that they had obtained an emergency protection order in case we tried to snatch our son from the hospital, which was quite ridiculous.”

The boy remained at the hospital until November 2008 and his parents were kept under supervision whenever they were with him.

Ken, 35, said: “We found out from his dietician that when they initially gave him vitamin D his levels had gone up, but then over a period of months it dropped right back. It strongly indicates to us that he has a problem absorbing vitamin D — but social services continued to accuse us.”

The parents were said to be “in denial” of their role in causing their son’s collapse, which then became a reason in itself for seeking to remove him. In late 2008 Lewisham council applied to the family courts to have the boy taken into care, but was granted an interim supervision order instead. This allowed the boy to go home from hospital but meant social workers would visit frequently. “We were told that once they had obtained the care order, they would apply for the same for our other children,” said Marie.

Despite psychological reports that found the parents to be normal, the council attempted to upgrade to a full supervision order.

Lewisham also unsuccessfully tried to get police to investigate the family. A social worker wrote to a colleague saying they should “actively encourage” police to investigate the case in the hope that the parents would acknowledge the “harm” the child had suffered.

Marie, who gave birth to the couple’s fourth child last October, said: “After our legal representation was removed, we [requested] a judicial review of the reasons for the interim supervision order. “The day before the court hearing last Tuesday, the council called us to say that if we would agree to them ‘monitoring and supporting’ us for a year, they would drop their application for a [full] order. We agreed to a six-month period of monitoring.

“If it wasn’t for the help of other professionals, such as paediatricians outside the Evelina, we probably would not have our son with us today. The big issue remaining is that no one seems to want to find out what the real reason is for his medical problems.”

John Hemming MP, who advised the family, said: “It is just appalling the way parents are being forced to agree to councils’ demands in order to keep their legal aid.”

Lewisham council said: “The court has made no criticism ... and considered that we acted entirely appropriately to protect the child.”

Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the Evelina, said: “Patients are only referred to social services if a multi-disciplinary team of senior clinicians suspect a child is in need ... No individual doctor makes this decision.”

The Legal Services Commission, which governs the awarding of legal aid, said it could be withdrawn if the chances of success were seen to be too low.

SOURCE





17 April, 2010

British council to pay out 'millions' to birth defect children

Children born with birth defects which resulted from the botched decontamination of a steelworks will receive compensation totalling millions of pounds after a council dropped its legal fight.

Corby Borough Council agreed an out of court settlement almost a year after the High Court ruled it was negligent in the way it dismantled a steelworks and disposed of toxic waste.

That led to a "statistically significant" cluster of birth defects between 1989 and 1999, including clubbed feet, shortened arms and missing fingers, found Mr Justice Akenhead.

Lawyers had argued that the mothers of 16 children had been left exposed to "an atmospheric soup of toxic materials" while pregnant, because of the council's mistakes. They included the loads of trucks carrying away contaminated waste not being fastened shut.

Despite the High Court decision, at the time the council said it would fight the ruling. But yesterday it agreed to drop its challenge.

In a joint statement with the families' solicitors, the council announced it had reached a final, binding agreement with 19 youngsters, included three not originally included. Negotiations had gone on for weeks. The contract forbids disclosure of the financial arrangement.

However, other compensation lawyers have estimated that each affected youngster could be in line for £100,000 to £500,000, depending on how badly they were affected.

Sarah Pearson, whose 15-year-old Lewis Waterfield was born with significant deformities to both hands, said after the announcement: "We are just so relieved our fight is finally at an end. "On behalf of all the Corby children and their families, I would like to thank all those who have supported us during our long campaign."

She added: "We would also like to give credit to the council for including three other children in this agreement, despite the court's ruling last year."

Louise Carley, 35, whose 11-year-old daughter Ashleigh Custance has problems with her right hand and arm, said: "This is closure, it means we can move on with our lives. We know what happened and we know why and we can get on with our future."

She said of the council: "It's the first time they have said sorry. That means more than anything. It's the fact it's not my fault any more."

Chris Mallender, chief executive of Corby Borough Council, said in the statement: "The council recognises that it made mistakes in its clean-up of the former British Steel site years ago and extends its deepest sympathy to the children and their families."

Although he said the money "cannot properly compensate" the young people, he said the council "sincerely hopes" the agreement would mean they could put the legal battle behind them.

Des Collins, solicitor for the families involved, paid tribute to "the immense determination and spirit of the Corby children and their families have shown". He said: "Today's agreement recognises the many years of emotional and physical suffering the 19 families have endured and will continue to endure. "It marks the end of an arduous 11-year legal challenge and removes the prospect of further litigation."

Although the council has decided not to pursue the case, it has not accepted liability.

There are also thought to be about 60 more families considering coming forward to pursue claims against the council.

The poisoning of Corby is widely regarded as Britain's biggest child poisoning case since the thalidomide scandal, unearthed in the 1970s.

In the late 1950s and 1960s, more than 10,000 babies were born with deformities as a result of what was considered a "wonder drug" to lessen morning sickness in pregnant women.

SOURCE



Some facts in reply to the latest official assertions about global warming

Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, and Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, penned a letter last week to the Financial Post in which they regurgitated many of the favorite bromides of the global warming movement, blaming mankind for rising global temperatures and warning of a coming climate catastrophe unless there is a radical reduction in human CO2 emissions.

Most of their assertions are either unproven or demonstrably false. Neither author was inventive enough to concoct any new anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fictions for public consumption. Everything was straight from the man-is-destroying the planet AGW template.

Let’s analyze several of the myths rehashed by these heavyweights of science.

Article continues below this advert:

Myth: “. . . neither recent controversies [Climategate e-mails], nor the recent cold weather, negate the consensus among scientists: something unprecedented is now happening. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising and climate change is occurring, both due to human actions.”

Fact: First, there is no so-called “consensus among scientists.” More than 31,400 American scientists, 9,029 with PhD degrees and 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth and environmental sciences, have signed a petition urging the United States government to reject any cap-and-trade agreement placing limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the petition, “The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Moreover, scientific inquiry is not based on “consensus.” If it were, science still would be wedded to Ptolemy’s theory placing the earth at the center of the universe, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars revolving about it in circular orbits. His theory was the consensus belief of the time.

Real science is driven by investigation, not consensus. Scientists develop a hypothesis, which is subjected to rigorous testing. Eventually it may evolve into a formal theory, which is exposed to further testing and experimentation by scientists determined to challenge or disprove it.

Unlike their “consensus” brethren, scientists worthy of the label carefully search for data that might actually contradict their theory so they can test it further or refine it. The "science is settled" soothsayers, on the other hand, select only data that tends to support their theory, while steadfastly ignoring any data that disagrees with it. The AGW-consensus-bound scientists are not practicing science; they are pushing advocacy.

Myth: “The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising and climate change is occurring, both due to human actions.”

Fact: Although human activity has contributed to rising levels of CO2, there is no empirical or physical evidence to support the contention that man-caused CO2 has caused the planet to warm. The estimated 0.7 Celsius increase in average global temperature during the past century can be just as easily explained by changes in albedo and ocean currents such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino-Southern Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

As former Navy Meteorologist Dr. Martin Hertzberg observes:

“It is shown that modest changes of at most one to two percent in the Earth’s albedo brought about by modest changes in cloud cover, are sufficient to account for the observed average temperature changes of the last century . . . It is implausible to expect that small changes in the concentration of any minor atmospheric constituent such as carbon dioxide can significantly influence that radiative equilibrium.”

Moreover, during the last eight years, from 2001 to 2009, the temperature trend shows a decrease of 0.52 degrees Celsius per century, despite rising CO2 levels, falsifying the IPPC model projections of continued warming triggered by human activity.

Increases in solar activity also have affected temperatures, and not just on our planet. As Earth warmed during the last century, astronomers also saw evidence of rising temperatures on Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Neptune and Pluto in the form of shrinking of CO2 ice caps, moons changing from solid ice to liquid, and frozen nitrogen turning to gas.

During the same time period, CO2 percolated out of the warming ocean on Earth (just as it foams out of a warming glass of carbonated beverage) and increased the amount of atmospheric CO2. So it is just as reasonable to conclude – without resorting to jerry-rigged models – that an active sun, not mankind, was the source of both the increase in global temperature and atmospheric CO2.

By the way, 33 U.S. states reported record high temperatures from the 1880s to 1930s, during a period when far less CO2 was expelled into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels than has been released during the past 50 or 60 years.

Along with the recent eight-year temperature decline, 20th-century temperature records undermine the theory that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

As engineer Dan Pangburn observes, "Average global temperatures for over a century have trended down, then up, then down, then up, then down, while average annual atmospheric CO2 levels have always risen since 1800. Lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation."

But such facts have not deterred climate-model-addicted scientists whose careers and funding depend on the existence of AGW. In order to coax higher temperatures from what amounts to a tiny increase in CO2-induced warming, scientists have managed to discover an amplification effect, called “feedback,” which they say multiplies the impact of carbon dioxide emissions. One of the gospels of the global warming religion, the theory of positive feedback states that a small temperature increase from rising carbon dioxide levels is amplified by the increase in water vapor caused by the temperature rise. The eventual result is runaway global warming.

Fortunately, the theory of CO2-generated runaway warming is falsified by geological records. During the late Ordovician period, the planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age, while atmospheric carbon dioxide soared to 4,400 parts per million (ppm), nearly 10 times today’s level. Where was the runaway greenhouse effect? Obviously, there must be other influences besides atmospheric carbon dioxide that affect global temperatures.

Ice core records

Antarctica’s Vostok ice core samples clearly show CO2 levels lagging temperature increases by 800 years, plus or a minus 200 years. Apparently, as temperatures increased, the oceans “out-gassed” CO2 as they, too, warmed. Some climatologists claim the CO2 out-gassing then “amplified” the warming. But the amplifier effect is based on unproven assumptions (enter the climate models, again) about the strength of the CO2-induced warming.

As CO2 Science observes, “There is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.” Moreover, during most of the past decade, temperatures have declined while CO2 levels have risen. There has been no runaway greenhouse effect.

The weakness of a CO2-warming correlation confirms the research of Dr. Sherwood Idso, president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record." That is, CO2 levels have been extremely high during ice ages and and periods of relatively cool temperatures, another fact that undermines the global warming alarmists’ pet CO2-causes-warming theory.

Global warming alarmists also ignore the fact that, during the last 600 million years, only the Carboniferous Period and our current age, the Quaternary Period, have experienced CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. Compared to those periods, today’s atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.

So why is there no runaway warming, even at 10 times the recorded levels of the past? One of the answers lies in CO2’s self-limiting absorption characteristic, which follows a logarithmic curve as levels increase. As carbon dioxide doubles, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase.

As the research paper “Cold Facts on Global Warming” observes:

“[The logarithmic effect] would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day – it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.”

Even if the concentration of atmospheric CO2 were four to five times current levels, it would produce only a small, incremental rise in the amount of infrared absorption. The large CO2-induced temperature increases predicted by computer models are not supported by results obtained by basic mathematical measurements.

Computer models have become a crutch. William Gray, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, says the models are incapable of accurately replicating atmospheric conditions – in particular, the effects of cloud cover and precipitation – and therefore, cannot be trusted.

“Most of the rise in temperature from the ‘70s to the ‘90s was natural,” he says. “Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.”

Distorted temperature data

Because surface-station temperature data is so poor, we can’t even be certain of the accuracy of the often-cited 0.7-degree Celsius global temperature increase that is supposed to have occurred during the last century. Based on Climategate e-mails and other evidence made public, there is a very real possibility that surface-station data has been manipulated to give the appearance of a warming trend.

Satellite temperature measurements (available since 1979) have been steadily diverging from surface station readings, indicating a warm bias in the surface temperature record, according to a research paper published this week by Intellicast chief meteorologist Joe D’Aleo and former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts, founder of the award-winning WattsUpWithThat science blog.

The authors conclude that the warming trend through the late 1990s was caused not by greenhouse gases, but instead by urbanization and land-use changes. And the warming bias was magnified by the use of improvised and inaccurate data adjustments, along with a huge reduction in the number of Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) reporting stations, many of them eliminated from high-lattitude or high-elevation locations.

“Since these surface changes [urbanization and land use] are not fully adjusted for, trends from the surface networks are not reliable . . . and can no longer be trusted for reliable climate trend assessment,” the authors warn.

Even with the warming bias included, recent temperatures have been declining. But global warming alarmists have found a convenient way to create their fictional “warming trend” by using only the last 30 years of temperature data, writes Pangburn.

”It is often quoted that all (or most) of the highest temperatures on record occurred in the last decade and also that the temperature trend is up. Both of these assertions can be shown to be true, but are misleading. The ‘record’ started with the advent of comparatively accurate and extensive direct measurements and near the lowest temperature of the Little Ice Age. Saying that the latest temperatures are among the highest on record is about as profound as saying that I drove 10,000 miles last year, and the last 10 days were among the greatest distance traveled since the beginning of the year."

Pangburn continues: “[Climatologists] conclude that agt [average global temperature] is rising because the linearized slope for the last 30 years is positive. But this is an artifact of the 30-year assumption. The agt rose sharply for the first 20 of the 30 years, but has been flat or declining since . . . A rising temperature trend is going to be the conclusion if our knowledge is limited to statistical analysis and the 30-year period. However, if the record had started with best estimates of agt during the Medieval Warm Period the linearized trend would be down.”

Model projections are not evidence

Contrary to the easily refuted assertions of Rees and Cicerone, there is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of recent global warming. The warming and cooling cycles of the past are natural and are caused primarily by changes in solar input, oscillating ocean currents, and the chaotic formation of clouds and precipitation – not by CO2-enhanced greenhouse effects.

The only evidence that humans cause global warming” comes from computer models. The creators of models can make them show whatever they want by simply manipulating parameters. They can be useful, but their results are not evidence of anything, writes engineer Willis Eschenbach.

“Evidence is observable and measurable data about the real world. Climate model results are nothing more than the beliefs and prejudices of the programmers made tangible. While the results of climate models can be interesting and informative, they are not evidence.”

The late, great newspaperman and critic H.L. Mencken would have thoroughly enjoyed debunking and attacking the silly ravings of today’s global warming alarmists. The following quote, vintage Mencken, describes perfectly the forces at work behind the AGW scare campaign.

“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.”

Today’s great hobgoblin appears in the shape of a molecule known as CO2.

SOURCE (See the original for links)



British schoolboy dislikes what the Labour Party has done to British education

Joel Weiner, 17, asked Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg whether it was not the case that school pupils were now "over-examined and undertaught", during the ITV leaders' debate.

Speaking before going into lessons, Joel said on Friday: "I would not vote for Labour, because of a series of failures over the last 13 years. "It is a tired government and there needs to be change – it has run out of ideas."

The teenager, from Kenton in north London, added: "All my school life has been under a Labour government – I'm a child of Blair." But constant testing of pupils – brought in under Tony Blair – meant teachers could not teach as they wanted, he argued.

"It is such a waste of an opportunity," he said. "It means, without a doubt, that teachers can't teach to their full potential. "I've got some very good teachers. I'm sure they've got much more to teach me, but they are restricted by the system."

For example, he said teachers felt pressurised to enter A-level pupils for January exams, as that meant they could retake in June if they performed poorly.

"The result is that we don't learn it properly the first time, because we have to cram," said the schoolboy, who is studying English, Politics and History. "I'd much rather learn it in depth and take the exam in June."

Joel, who attends the 2,000-pupil Jews' Free School in Kenton, a state-funded religious co-ed described by Ofsted as "outstanding", did not think any of the leaders fully answered his question. "They were wanting to give lines from their manifestos," he said.

He conceded Mr Clegg was "good at putting his point across" about reducing class sizes, but dismissed Mr Cameron's response as "disappointing" and said Mr Brown merely "managed to avoid the question".

Like many pundits, he thought Mr Cameron was "not entirely impressive". "Maybe if he were to give a bit more of a heartfelt response next time, then he would be able to galvanise the public," he advised. "He was trying to be slick but he didn't really do what he does best, which is talking from the heart."

Last October Joel confronted Nick Griffin on BBC One's Question Time over comments the British National Party has made in the past casting doubt on the Holocaust. Attacking the BNP's appropriation of Churchill as a symbol, he said: "Winston Churchill put everything on the line so that my ancestors wouldn’t get slaughtered in the concentration camps. "But here sits a man who says that that’s a myth, just like the flat world was a myth. How could you say that?"

Joel said two of his great-grandparents were believed killed at Auschwitz, while his grandmother and grandfather both escaped from Nazi Germany.

Questions have been raised about how come the schoolboy managed to appear on both programmes. Joel said he simply applied for each, firstly for Question Time, a year before Nick Griffin was invited on air; and secondly for the leaders' debate via ITV's website.

SOURCE





16 April, 2010

Compensation for man given contaminated blood rejected by NHS on flawed grounds

Tight-arsed NHS put to shame by Ireland

An award-winning composer who contracted HIV and Hepatitis C through NHS treatment with contaminated blood products has won a legal challenge over compensation payments.

Haemophiliac Andrew March, 36, had sought a judicial review quashing the Health Secretary's May 2009 decision not to implement fully the recommendations of the Archer Report on supplies which were not adequately cleansed before use.

The Government has refused to assess compensation on the same basis as in the Republic of Ireland as it considers that the Irish blood transfusion service was found to be at fault, which was not the case in the UK.

At a hearing last month, Mr March's counsel, Michael Fordham QC, told Mr Justice Holman a judicial review was warranted as the decision was made for manifestly bad reasons. "What we say is that the Secretary of State should reconsider this important aspect on a correct basis."

Supporters of legally aided Mr March, of Edith Road, West Kensington - who attended London's High Court for the ruling - applauded as the judge said he was satisfied that the Government's approach "has been, and remains, infected by an error".

Contesting the application, the Government argued that it had funded various schemes which had, at May last year, paid out a total of £142 million to those infected by NHS products. Philippa Whipple QC said there was no misunderstanding, let alone error of fact, by the UK Government.

It accepted that the Irish scheme was not "fault-based" in a legal sense, but there were findings of fault which formed the context in which political decisions were made in Ireland in about 1997 to provide compensatory levels of award.

The judge said he wished to make absolutely clear that the allocation of resources was entirely a matter for the Government. But it had been faced with a specific reasoned recommendation, which it had rejected, of comparability or equivalence with Ireland, where "very much higher" payments were made to sufferers and their dependants.

He said that, when pressed as to why they had rejected comparability, they had not merely repeated that they could not afford it but given a reason which, in his view, contained an error and did not withstand scrutiny - that they continued to regard the Irish system as based on fault rather than on compensation.

He added that he wished to make "very, very clear" that he had merely quashed the existing decision in relation to the relevant recommendation. "I have given no steer or indication whatsoever as to what the Government may decide upon reconsideration, and it would be a grave abuse of my role if I were to do so. "The campaign may now return to the political arena, but no-one should leave this courtroom with a false optimism."

The judge refused permission to appeal although leave can be sought directly from the Court of Appeal.

Outside court, Mr March said: "Having the judgment go in our favour gives us no pleasure at all. "The judge's decision proves the flawed basis on which the Government made its decision not to implement the recommended compensation scheme. "The judgment now compels the Government to retake the decision lawfully and based on accurate information.

"We hope that the Government will now consider the whole issue of compensating those so tragically affected by the contaminated blood disaster, instead of making token, derisory, ex-gratia payments."

Earlier, in his ruling, the judge had commended Mr March. He said Mr Fordham had paid his client a warm tribute "for his tenacity and balance in the asking of questions and soliciting of information, and not taking no for an answer when the reasons are not good ones".

The judge added: "My impression is that that tribute is justified and well judged, and that the many other people interested in this cause owe gratitude to Mr March for his tenacity or persistence."

SOURCE



The upcoming British elections (on May 6)

Comments below by Professor Peter Saunders, a British sociologist of libertarian inclinations

‘Let the baby-kissing begin.’ With these words, the BBC announced the start of Britain’s general election campaign, which is already turning out to be the most dishonest in living memory.

Everybody knows the country is bankrupt, but nobody will say what they’re going to do about it. The deficit is on the same scale as Greece; the public debt is bigger than at any time since World War II. But the first week of the campaign was taken up with an absurd argument about £6 billion of National Insurance revenues when the budget deficit is £167 billion! The parties are fiddling as the country burns.

Both parties have promised to maintain ‘front line services,’ and neither is talking about tax rises. Conservative leader David Cameron has promised health spending and foreign aid will be ring-fenced (never mind that Britain is still giving China £170 million per year in aid!).

Cameron is desperate to convince voters that the Tories have changed. They are now the nice party. He says the Thatcher years were divisive and that he will be ‘inclusive.’

But Labour wants to convince us that Cameron is a Thatcherite wolf in sheep’s clothing. This week, it launched a nationwide poster campaign based on the hugely popular BBC drama Ashes to Ashes in which a police officer is shot and wakes up in the 1980s. The poster portrays Cameron as Gene Hunt, the abrasive, politically-incorrect detective at the centre of the program. The tagline warns that the Tories will take us back to the 1980s.

But the campaign has backfired. Viewers like Gene Hunt! Cameron comes across as a rather prissy Eton toff. By portraying him as a no-nonsense tough guy, Labour has done him a huge favour.

But why do both parties think Thatcher is such a toxic brand? When she came to power in 1979, Britain was on its knees. The unions had made the country ungovernable, the Treasury was in hock to the IMF, and all the big industries were owned by the state and didn’t work. When the Tories lost office in 1997, they handed over one of the strongest economies in Europe. At a time when the country’s economy has again collapsed, you would think the Tories would be embracing this record, not trying to distance themselves from it.

The country is bust, but the parties won’t scare the voters with talk of nasty medicine to come. It may be time for the politicians to start kissing babies, but they are all determined not to frighten the children.

The above is a press release from the Centre for Independent Studies, dated April 16. Enquiries to cis@cis.org.au. Snail mail: PO Box 92, St Leonards, NSW, Australia 1590.



Now prosecute my accuser, says teacher at top British boys' school cleared of seducing 6th-former

A teacher accused of seducing a sixth-form boy while working at a leading public school was acquitted yesterday - and then demanded that he be prosecuted. Oxford graduate Hannah McIntyre, 25, said she never wanted to be in the company of another school pupil as long as she lived.

A jury took only an hour-and-a-quarter to clear her of having sex with the 16-year-old.

He had claimed the public school-educated classics teacher had 'passionately' kissed him for a dare after letting him and his friends into her flat and plying them with cider before taking him up to bed.

She was charged with unlawful sexual activity with a child while in a position of trust, an offence which carries up to five years in prison, and sacked from her job at £8,000-a-year Merchant Taylors' Boys' School, in Crosby, Merseyside.

But her trial this week heard that her accuser, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had previously been suspended for being rude to female teachers. The defence suggested he had made up the sexual liaison to ensure he was allowed to finish his A-levels so he could go to university.

The case will reinforce fears that teachers' careers are being ruined by bogus allegations by pupils.

After she was cleared yesterday, Miss McIntyre called for her teenage accuser - whose anonymity continues to be protected by law - to be prosecuted himself. 'Anger is not first among my thoughts right now,' she said. 'But he has, with no accountability, made an accusation and I would like to see him have to realise the effect he has had on me.'

Miss McIntyre, who had denied the charge, said she was 'ecstatic' at the verdict. 'I now need to go and have a large drink and sleep for a week,' she added.

After a celebratory kiss with her boyfriend, who gave his name only as Pete, she was asked about her future career. She said she had 'a few things in mind', and that she had found the legal process 'incredibly interesting'. But she added: 'Right now I don't think I would ever want to be in the company of another school pupil in my entire life.'

Miss McIntyre went to the leading Scottish public school Fettes College - which Tony Blair attended - before studying classics at Balliol College, Oxford. Without taking a teacher training course, she went straight to Merchant Taylors' - whose ex-pupils include former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Runcie and rugby World Cup winner Ben Kay - to teach Latin, Greek and classical civilisation.

But Miss McIntyre, who was described as 'painfully shy', soon found herself incapable of controlling the disruptive behaviour of some boys in her classes, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

The young teacher, who stands only 5ft tall, said they nicknamed her 'the Jock Dwarf' and would lock her in cupboards, put her mobile phone on top of lockers where she couldn't reach it and use it to send text messages without her knowledge.

On January 21, 2008, the 16-year-old - who sometimes 'sat in' on her classes - and two friends decided to call at Miss McIntyre's flat in the Waterloo district of Crosby for 'a laugh'. They found her drinking wine in her pyjamas.

The boys - all over 6ft - had been drinking. According to Miss McIntyre, they barged inside in an intimidating fashion, rummaging through her possessions and grabbing her pet lizard.

She told the court she agreed to accompany them to an off-licence and buy them bottles of cider in the hope that they would leave her alone, but they followed her back.

According to the teenagers, after a £20 'dare' that one of them should kiss her wasn't acted upon, one of the boys 'dared' Miss McIntyre to kiss his 16-year-old friend which he claimed she did, 'passionately'.

But she described their account as 'rubbish', saying he kissed her without warning, leaving her feeling 'repulsed' and so panicky that she had to go up to her bed, on a mezzanine level above the living area.

But he followed her simulating 'moans of ecstasy' to amuse his friends, she said. She began hyperventilating and played the game Tetris on her mobile phone to calm down. Eventually, she fell asleep, and when she awoke they had gone. She informed the school's head the next day that the boys had spent the evening at her flat, but both she and they denied anything improper had taken place.

It wasn't until almost a year later that the teenager - now a 19-year-old whose ambition of going to university has been fulfilled - told his mother they'd had sex, and Miss McIntyre was arrested.

The boy - who was a virgin at the time - said he got into bed beside her and that they had sex, but he admitted his recollection of how it had happened was 'far from clear'. Under cross-examination, he said he hadn't enjoyed the kiss as she had been 'chain-smoking', adding: 'I did not think she was all that attractive.'

She was sacked by the school after being charged, and although an appeal has been lodged she does not intend to return to teaching.

Miss McIntyre's mother Irene, herself a teacher in their home town of Falkirk, said after the verdict that malicious allegations were now a sad reality in the profession. 'It's become a more obvious hazard,' she said, adding that she was 'overwhelmed and delirious' at her daughter's acquittal.

Last month Teresa McKenzie, deputy headmistress of a school in Cheshire, appeared in court accused of seducing a 16-year-old boy and having sex with him at the British Library and in a hotel after sending him steamy love notes. But she was cleared after the boy was exposed as a serial liar with a history of making sexual advances to teachers and social workers.

In 2007 Andrew Riley, a PE teacher and head of sixth form, at a school in Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire, was left with his marriage and career in tatters despite being acquitted of having cocaine-fuelled sex with a promiscuous 17-year-old girl pupil.

In 2008 Chris Keates, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, said consensual liaisons between teachers and pupils aged over 16 should be considered disciplinary matters, not criminal ones.

SOURCE



Girls are naturally drawn to dolls as soon as they can crawl

Baby girls make a beeline for dolls as soon as they can crawl - and boys will head for the toy cars, a study has shown. With no prompting, they will choose the stereotypical toys for their gender.

The findings - the first to show consistent differences in very young babies - suggest there is a biological basis to their preferences.

This indicates that 'politically correct' efforts to steer children towards things they wouldn't normally play with are doomed to failure.

Psychologists Dr Brenda Todd and Sara Amalie O'Toole Thommessen from City University London carried out an experiment involving 90 infants aged nine months to 36 months. The babies were allowed to choose from seven toys. Some were stereotypically boys' toys - a car, a digger, a ball and a blue teddy.

The rest were stereotypically girl toys: a pink teddy, a doll and a cooking set. The infants were placed a metre away from the toys, and could pick which ever they pleased. Their choice, and the amount of time they spent playing with each toy was recorded.

Of the youngest children (nine to 14 months), girls spent significantly longer playing with the doll than boys, and boys spent much more time with the car and ball than the girls did.

Among the two and three-year-olds, girls spent 50 per cent of the time playing with the doll while only two boys briefly touched it. The boys spent almost 90 per cent of their time playing with cars, which the girls barely touched.

There was no link between the parents' views on which toys were more appropriate for boys or girls, and the children's choices.

The researchers presented their study yesterday at the British Psychological Society's annual conference in Stratford on Avon. Dr Brenda Todd said: 'Children of this age are already subject to a great deal of socialisation. Boys may be given "toys that go" while girls get toys they can nurture which may help shape their preferences. But these findings are consistent with the idea of an intrinsic bias in children to show interest in particular kinds of toys.

'There could be a biological basis for their choices. Males through evolution have been adapted to prefer moving objects, probably through hunting instincts, while girls prefer warmer colours such as pink, the colour of a newborn baby.'

SOURCE



British science writer wins bitter libel battle -- but at a huge cost

"Chilling effect", anyone?

The science writer Simon Singh stands to lose £60,000 in legal costs despite winning a case against chiropractors who sued him for libel over his criticism of their medical claims.

The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) dropped its action against the journalist yesterday after a Court of Appeal ruling two weeks ago found that Dr Singh’s “honest opinion” was entitled to a fair comment defence. The judgment noted that: “Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation.”

The BCA had sued Dr Singh for libel over a newspaper article in which he alleged that the organisation promoted “bogus treatments”, such as chiropractic for childhood asthma and colic, that were not supported by evidence.

Although Dr Singh’s lawyers will pursue the BCA for costs, he is likely to recover only 70 per cent of the £200,000 he has spent on defending himself.

Dr Singh said that the bill he faced, even after being vindicated, highlighted the “chilling effect” of English libel law on freedom of expression. “My bill for a clear victory could be £60,000,” he said. “That explains why people don’t fight libel cases: even if you win, you lose. My victory does not mean that our libel laws are OK, because I won despite the libel laws.

“English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest.”

His solicitor, Robert Dougans, of Bryan Cave LLP, said: “In the game of libel, even winning is costly and stressful. Until we have a proper public interest defence, scientists and writers are going to have to carry on making the unenviable choice of either shying away from hard-hitting debate, or paying through the nose for the privilege of defending it.”

The Court of Appeal reversed a ruling by the High Court last May that Dr Singh’s comments were factual assertions rather than expressions of opinion, which meant that he could not use the defence of fair comment.

In a statement the BCA said: “The decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side.”

Mr Dougans said that the Court of Appeal judgment would help other scientists and science writers to defend libel actions, such as Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist who is being sued for raising concerns about research into a heart device. It will not now be reviewed by the Supreme Court. “It is going to become increasingly difficult to sue over public debate of scientific issues,” he said. “Dr Wilmshurst is going to have a cast-iron defence now.”

Mr Dougans noted, however, that defendants rarely recovered more than 70 per cent of their costs even when libel actions were dropped.

Dr Singh could also incur further costs if the BCA does not have the funds to reimburse him. Had he lost the case at trial, he could have been liable for costs of both sides of up to £1 million. He said that he had spent 45 full weeks working on the case over the past two years, adding: “That is essentially a year’s worth of work and earnings.”

He said that he felt a huge relief. “Fortunately the case has ended when my son Hari is only three weeks old, so I can now relax and enjoy being a father.

“The good news is that all three main parties this week committed to a libel reform Bill in the next Parliament. But libel reform has to be radical. Cutting costs by a half means that a trial will not cost £1 million but cost £500,000, but this is still extortionate. Costs need to be cut by a factor of 10 at least.”

He added: “The Court of Appeal judgment says that when a science journalist is sued for libel for criticising evidence, the defence of fair comment should be the default position. But that doesn’t stop libel tourism, or huge companies suing individual scientists, journalists or bloggers to silence them.”

SOURCE



Lord Carey warns of ‘unrest’ if judges continue with ‘dangerous’ rulings

Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, warned today of future “civil unrest” if judges continue with “disturbing” and “dangerous” rulings in religious discrimination cases.

He intervened in a case being brought by a Bristol solicitor and relationship counsellor who wants a special panel of five senior judges to hear his appeal against being sacked for refusing to counsel homosexual couples.

Lord Carey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002, attacked the courts over a series of “disturbing” judgments and accused judges of being responsible for some “dangerous” reasoning which could, if taken to extremes, lead to Christians being banned from the workplace.

“Recent decisions of the courts have illuminated insensitivity to the interests and needs of the Christian community and represent disturbing judgments,” he said in a witness statement.

Lord Carey said it was “but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a “religious bar” to any employment by Christians.”

Lord Carey, who said he had the support of several other Anglican bishops and other leading churchmen, also attacked recent decisions by the Court of Appeal on the right of Christians to wear crosses in the workplace. These displayed a “worrying lack of awarness of Christian religious and cultural manifestations, he said.

“This type of ‘reasoning’ is dangerous to the social order and represents clear animus to Christian beliefs. The fact that senior clerics of the Church of England and other faiths feel compelled to intervene directly in judicial decisions and cases is illuminative of a future civil unrest.

“The effect of these decisions is to undermine the religious liberties that have existed in the United Kingdom for centuries. If there is to be a limitation of Christian liberties in Britain, this should be a matter for Parliament.”

His intervention came in an appeal being brought by Gary McFarlane, a member of a Pentecostal church, who says he will have no chance of a fair hearing if his case is conducted by judges who have already made rulings that show “a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs.”

He and other Christians say they are specifically concerned by a ruling of Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls, and other appeal judges that a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships because they were against her Christian beliefs could no longer carry on in her job.

Mr McFarlane, 48, is challenging an employment tribunal ruling that supported his sacking for refusing to give psychosexual counsellling to homosexual couples.

His counsel, Paul Diamond, a leading religious rights barrister, said that Mr McFarlane wants a special panel of five judges “under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice” so as to have a chance of “fair” ruling. Judges who have already shown a “lack of understanding of Christian beliefs” should stand down, he said.

With Lord Carey’s backing he also wants a permanent panel of judges to be established, with a “proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues.”

Mr Diamond today told Lord Justice Laws, a senior Court of Appeal judge, that the case was a “seminal” one, “not just for the law but for the direction of the United Kingdon, and whether we are going to be a secular state or neutral state holding the ring between competing values. It was not for the courts to set themselves up as “ominicompetent lawmakers” but to hold the balance between competing rights, he added.

Mr McFarlane and other Christians are specifically concerned by a ruling of Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, and other appeal judges, that Lillian Ladele, a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships ceremonies – because they were against her Christian beliefs – could no longer work as a registrar.

They claim that the effect of the ruling in December now means that the right to express the Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals under Labour’s equality laws.

The ruling about the registrar, Lillian Ladele, “does not justice to freedom of religion issues and to millions of belivers in this country and worldwide,” Mr Diamond said. “You can understand why religious leaders found that judgment unacceptable, demeaning and insulting.”

The Christian Legal Centre which is backing Mr McFarlane’s case is also running the case of Theresa Davies, a professional colleague of Lillian Ladele, the registrar who also felt unable to officiate over same sex civil partnerships as a matter of conscience.

One was Shirley Chaplin, 55, a nurse living near Exeter who had worn the cross every day for 38 years, and who recently lost her case.

She said: “I have just lost my case in the Employment Tribunal. It was held that I had not been discriminated against, even though I was not allowed to wear my cross whilst other colleagues were allowed to wear their religious symbols. I hope that the judges make it clear that Christians are to be protected from discrimination, just like anybody else.”

The Master of the Rolls is the second most senior judge in England and Wales, after the Lord Chief Justice. The Master of the Rolls, a position which dates back to the 13th century, is the presiding officer of the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.

Lord Carey said that that in a world of conflicting rights, both need to be considered and accommodated. It is therefore not acceptable that the Christian view is considered “discriminatory” by the courts, with Christians likened to “bigots”.

Lord Justice Laws reserved his decision at the end of the hour-long hearing and said he would give his reasons in writing later.

Mr McFarlane, a father of two who was in court, said that the case was a crucial one for the future and would determine “the way society is going in terms of secularisation.”

SOURCE



The pot calls the kettle Afro-American

Mephedrone ban shows how politics contaminate science, says Lancet -- failing to mention its own hysterical criticisms of George Bush and the Iraq war. Politics certainly contaminated science there. Typical Leftist "principles" of convenience

A ban on the drug mephedrone brought in by the Government this month was a rushed decision that further exemplifies how politics is “contaminating” science and the work of government advisers, according to a leading medical journal.

An editorial in The Lancet strongly criticises the way ministers moved to ban mephedrone and pressured its advisory body to produce the necessary evidence to act.

The former “legal high” drug was given Class B status and banned after reportedly being linked to 25 deaths. Yet the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report that recommended the ban acknowledged that there was no scientific evidence of a causal link between the deaths and the drug.

The editorial describes the decision as motivated more by “political and media pressure” and draws parallels with the ACMD’s troubled recent history.

In October 2009 the council’s former chairman, Professor David Nutt, was sacked for criticising government policy on cannabis and ecstasy. His dismissal triggered the protest resignation of five other members.

Commenting on the latest decision, led by its new interim chairman, Professor Les Iverson, The Lancet notes: “Alarmingly, the report, which was only a draft, was still being discussed by the ACMD when Iverson rushed out of the meeting to brief Home Secretary Alan Johnson of their recommendation in time for a press briefing.”

The editorial also observes that a report on tackling alcohol and tobacco abuse by young people was “conveniently buried” by the furore over mephedrone.

A former ACMD member, Eric Carlin, who resigned over the mephedrone decision, wrote on his blog: “We were unduly pressured by media and politicians to make a quick, tough decision to classify.”

On the same day that the council issued its mephedrone recommendation, it released a report entitled Pathways to Problems that looked at drug use by young people. The report contained some “potentially unpalatable conclusions”, including the claim that not enough was being done on alcohol and tobacco, said The Lancet. It also called for a review of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act.

But the report received no media attention and prompted no response from the Home Office. “Instead it conveniently got buried under discussions on the legal status of mephedrone,” said the editorial.

The ACMD did not have sufficient evidence to judge the drug’s harmfulness, the journal added. It said: “It is too easy and potentially counter-productive to ban each new substance that comes along rather than seek to understand more about young people’s motivations and how we can influence them. “We should try to support healthy behaviours rather than simply punish people who breach our society’s norms.”

The ACMD affair signalled a “disappointing finale to the Government’s relationship with science”, said the editorial. It concluded: “Politics has been allowed to contaminate scientific processes and the advice that underpins policy.

“The outcome of an independent inquiry into the practices of the ACMD, commissioned by the Home Office in October 2009, is now urgently awaited. Lessons from this debacle need to be learned by a new incoming government.”

SOURCE



Bizarre: Cancer link found in turning on light for night-time bathroom trips

What next will the mice-men churn out in the way of extravagant extrapolations?

SIMPLY turning on a light at night for a few seconds to go to the toilet can cause changes that might lead to cancer, scientists claim. Researchers in the UK and Israel found that when a light is turned on at night, it triggers an "over-expression" of cells linked to the formation of cancer.

Previous research has linked an increased risk of breast cancer and prostate cancer in workers exposed to artificial light on night shifts. But researchers said the latest research was the first that showed even short-term exposure could be linked to cancer.

The tests were carried out on mice at Leicester University by geneticist Professor Charalambos Kyriacou.

During the trial, a group of mice was exposed to a light for an hour. When compared with mice kept in the dark, changes were found in brain cells responsible for the circadian clock which controls bodily functions.

SOURCE



Climategate whitewash

CRU scientists who removed caveats from IPCC reports are praised for warning of uncertainties in their published work!

"Climategate scientists cleared of wrongdoing” read the headline in yesterday’s Post. Who expected anything else? The two self-inquiries launched by the University of East Anglia into its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were always destined to produce whitewashes, as did a recent UK parliamentary inquiry, and as will an “independent” review by the UN.

The first of the UEA reports, from a committee headed by ardent warmist and anti-carbon profiteer Lord Oxburgh, appeared this week. As Lawrence Solomon points out elsewhere on this page, the choice of Lord Oxburgh indicated that the fix was always in for an inquiry which fails to address, let alone probe, most of the major issues. And yet there is a mountain of condemnation-by-faint-exoneration between the lines of the report’s ridiculously slim five pages.

Its attempt to present CRU head Phil Jones, and his beleaguered band, as unworldly boffins who were blindsided by all this attention is ridiculous. The report claims that it found a “small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers.” The key question is: dedicated to what? Certainly, they weren’t expecting to be outed quite so spectacularly, but to paint them as innocents in the big bad world of climate realpolitik is nonsense.

After reviewing a cherry-picked group of eleven CRU studies, the report gently raps the knuckles of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, for failing to note the reservations that CRU researchers so assiduously attached to their peer-reviewed work. “All of the published work was accompanied by detailed descriptions of uncertainties and accompanied by appropriate caveats,” notes the report.

Global warming alarmists relentlessly chant that there is scientific “consensus” that the “science is settled.” Yet now we are told that somehow the main body for promoting the climate change agenda “neglected” to tell the world that the science wasn’t settled. What we are not told is that the scientists who removed the caveats in the IPCC reports were lead IPCC authors Mr. Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa!

The CRU is concerned with temperature data. Indeed it is one of the principal sources for claims that the earth warmed alarmingly in the 20th century after 900 years of alleged climatic calm (Medieval Warm Period? Little Ice Age? Never happened).

Data from the distant past is reconstructed from problematic “proxies” such as tree rings; but even assembling readings for more recent periods is difficult due to the thin coverage of weather stations and, more seriously, to the impact of the “urban heat island effect” on readings from stations where development has encroached. There, temperature increases may be due to traffic, tarmac and local barbecues rather than global climate.

The CRU’s data has appeared in two forms: raw and cooked. Much of the raw variety, unfortunately, has been “lost.” This is treated by the review as infinitely excusable due to the pressures of the academic life. You know, tedious admin meetings, the pressure to publish, the need to get in those applications for multi-million dollar grants attached to proving man-made global warming. But how can ditching the fundamental data on which your science depends be dubbed mere carelessness with “non-essential record keeping?”

As for the cooked data, the CRU has been accused of “manipulation” not in the legitimate statistical sense, so that different data sets may be comparable, but in support of the results required by government-funded, highly politicized science. Without data suggesting rising temperatures due to anthropogenic emissions, there would be no justification for massive global programs such as cap-and-trade, redistributionist “clean development,” or the hefty subsidization of alternative energy.

The CRU is also gently fingered for its lack of statistical sophistication. As the report admits, “It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical.”

But hang on. Draconian global policies have been made on the basis of dodgy data handled by those who are less than expert? This is surely a little more than “regrettable.” If statistics are so important, why didn’t the IPCC make sure the CRU, and itself, had the world’s greatest statistical minds on tap? Could that be because the data and science are there to support the political position rather than guiding it?

The report does dish out some harsh criticisms, but only to the unnamed CRU critics whose “tone” it “deplores.” They presumably refer to the likes of Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, whom Lord Oxburgh and his team assiduously avoided. Meanwhile the emphasis on “tone” is farcical, particularly when compared with the kind of anti-skeptic vitriol exposed in the Climategate emails.

According to the report “some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU.” So skeptics such as Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick might have been stonewalled, insulted, undermined and threatened by the CRU cabal, but apparently it was they who should have been more “charitable.”

Lord Oxburgh suggested this week that attacks on the CRU had come from people who do not like the “implications” of their conclusions. If by “implications” he means suicidal and pointless policies, then that might have been the one thing he got right. Otherwise, his report is a travesty.

SOURCE



Seek and ye might be arrested

Rather Orwellian

Police are investigating anyone who requested information from the university department at the centre of the ‘climategate’ scandal.

Norfolk Constabulary is trying to work out who stole thousands of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia at the end of last year.

The emails, that were posted on the internet, appear to show scientists were unwilling to reveal data on global warming and led to an international scandal known as ‘climategate’.

Already prominent climate change sceptics around the world have been questioned and members of staff at the university, but is has now emerged that ordinary members of the public who did nothing more than request information are also being targeted.

Sebastian Nokes, a businessman and climate change sceptic, wrote to a national newspaper to complain. He said all he had done was request information on the CRU’s disclosure rules and he was questioned on his political and scientific beliefs.

Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory, who is leading the investigation, said his unit is looking into anyone who could give clues to who stole the emails and working with experts in "extremism". “As with any investigation we will interview anyone who may have information which is of relevance to the enquiry,” he said.

The university was cleared of scientific malpractice recently. There is separate ongoing investigation by academics into whether Freedom of Information requests were dealt with correctly.

SOURCE





15 April, 2010

NHS wastes millions on silver wound dressings 'that kill infections'

Plenty of money for fads but no money for many proven drugs

Millions of pounds are being wasted by the NHS on wound dressings that contain silver amid doubts over their effectiveness, experts say. Silver is known to have anti-microbial properties and is used in many types of dressings for wounds, ulcers and burns.

How it exactly works is unknown, but silver is thought to stop microbes from being able to spread. It has become a fashionable weapon in the fight against hospital infections.

The amount of NHS cash spent on such products has risen in recent years from around £23 million in 2005 to around £25 million in 2006/7, according to an editorial in the latest Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin.

The latest figure is a quarter of all the cash spent on wound dressings in that year, with silver dressings accounting for one seventh of the total number of dressings.

In the article, experts said the evidence backing the use of silver dressings was not robust enough. Trials on effectiveness have featured small sample sizes and have failed to assess how well the dressings work over a long period, such as the 12 or more weeks it takes an ulcer to heal.

Patients, however, do not report many, if any, side-effects, the article said.

Nevertheless, their high cost is "difficult to justify" while evidence that they work considerably better than cheaper dressings is so scarce.

The authors concluded: "Silver dressings are expensive and there have been few high-quality clinical trials to establish whether they have advantages over other, cheaper alternatives. "Most of the studies that have been conducted have had considerable methodological limitations.

"With these factors in mind, we believe the routine use of silver dressings is not justified on clinical or cost-effectiveness grounds as treatment for uncomplicated leg ulcers, when simple dressings and compression bandaging are more appropriate.

"Overall, the amount currently spent in the NHS on silver dressings appears difficult to justify in the light of the existing data."

The article also said silver dressings are not suitable for acute wounds as there is some evidence, albeit weak, to suggest they can delay rather than speed up healing.

SOURCE



"Anti elitist" British school system in fact entrenches elitism

The hated "Grammar" schools at least selected on ability alone. Not so the present system

Top comprehensives are more “socially exclusive” than grammar schools as parents play the system to make sure children get a place, according to research. The most affluent families still have “wriggle room” to get sons and daughters into leading schools, despite the introduction of beefed up admissions rules by Labour, it was claimed.

Academics called for the most popular schools to allocate places by lottery to give all children an equal chance of gaining a place, irrespective of their background.

The recommendations – in a study commissioned by the Sutton Trust charity – come just weeks after almost 100,000 children were rejected from their first choice school.

Some one-in-six 11-year-olds failed to get into the state secondary of their choice for September amid intense competition for the most sought-after places.

Sir Peter Lampl, the trust’s chairman, said a wave of new schools being proposed by the Conservatives should all adopt random “ballots” to stop them being dominated by children from middle-class families.

“Deployed alongside other select criteria, ballots are the fairest way of deciding school places in over-subscribed schools,” he said. “There has to be some way of choosing which pupils are admitted and ballots offer the same chances to all children irrespective of their background.”

In the latest study, academics from Buckingham University analysed the proportion of deprived pupils at each school – and compared numbers to the social make-up of the local community.

Prof Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson found that the most popular comprehensives, which are not supposed to select pupils, were "more socially exclusive" than England's remaining academically selective grammar schools.

The 164 most exclusive comprehensives took only 9.2 per cent of pupils from poor backgrounds, even though around 20 per cent of children living in their surrounding area were “income deprived”. By comparison, some 13.5 per cent of children from 164 grammar schools were from poor homes.

The study suggested that grammars – which select pupils on the basis of the 11-plus entrance exam – were more transparent as they identified pupils “with talent, irrespective of their backgrounds”.

Comprehensives, which normally admit children by distance to the school gates, give parents more chance to play the system by moving "close to the desired school”.

Faith-based comprehensives, which select on the basis of religious observance, can also be more easily manipulated by parents who “can take pains to demonstrate they are active members of a particular faith”, the study suggested.

Labour has attempted to close loopholes by repeatedly updating its admissions rules. But the report – Worlds Apart: Social Variation Among Schools – said there was “still wriggle room for schools that want to ensure a favourable intake to enable them to show up well in league tables”.

“Our view is that the principal means [of admission] should be by ballot,” it said. “It would be fair and lead to a more equitable education system. “It could be used in conjunction with other criteria, for example ability, faith or location.”

SOURCE



'Climategate' scientists criticised for not using best statistical tools

Lord Oxburgh has allowed limited criticisms, which is good of him, considering that he is also the head of the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, a lobby group for global warming legislation, and an advisor to Climate Change Capital, which aims to cash in on the $45-trillion market in the coming low-carbon economy

Climate change scientists at the centre of an ongoing row over man-made global warming have been criticised for being "naive" and "disorganised".

An independent inquiry said the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia was "ill prepared for being the focus of public attention" when sceptics began to question their figures on climate change.

As well as taking issue with the researchers' record keeping, the panel of experts said better statistical methods should have been used to interpret the "messy" data on world temperatures.

However, there was no evidence of "deliberate scientific malpractice", meaning the conclusion that mankind is causing global warming is probably correct.

The independent panel said any exaggeration of the extent of global warming was made by other organisations, including public bodies and governments, that took the information produced by academics but failed to inform the public about the uncertainties.

Supporters of the scientists called for an immediate apology from sceptics for trying to use the so-called "climategate" scandal as a basis for questioning the whole science of climate change. But sceptics insisted there are still question marks over the extent of man-made global warming.

Thousands of emails were stolen from the CRU at the end of last year. One email referred to a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, prompting claims that scientists were willing to manipulate the data to exaggerate the extent of global warming.

The scandal led to a public outcry, casting doubt over climate change just as the United Nations was meeting in Copenhagen to try to agree a deal to stop global warming.

Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and head of Shell, was asked to look back at 20 years of research by CRU in order to check the scientific methods were sound. In a detailed review of 11 scientific papers he found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever". "Whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done honestly and fairly," he said.

Lord Oxburgh said any exaggeration of the extent of global warming happened when the data produced by CRU was presented to the public by various organisations, including the UN body in charge of climate change the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that went on to advise Governments around the world. The IPCC has also been criticised for incorrectly claiming the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

"I am sure that they [public bodies including the IPCC] took the uncertainties into account making policy but in the way some of this has been presented to the public, it has not," he said.

The statistical methods used by the scientists could also have been improved, according to the panel. Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society and a member of the review panel, said improved techniques developed by computers over recent years could have been used.

"I think that CRU perhaps did not use the most advanced statistical tools. But it's not clear to me that that, had they done, that they would have drawn different conclusions," he said.

However Professor Hand did say that "inappropriate methods" were used by a separate university to draw up the infamous "hockey stick" graph showing the rise in global temperatures over more than 1,000 years. Again, he said the basic shape of the graph would not have been changed but the rise in temperature during the 20th century compared to the past was exaggerated.

Overall Prof Hand said the scientists at CRU were to be commended for making clear there are uncertainties in the extent of global warming – although that does not change the overall trend. "There is no evidence of anything underhand – the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with," he said. [They did? When? Only after their emails were published]

Edward Acton, Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, said the report was a great relief to the individuals involved including the head of the CRU at the time Prof Phil Jones. "This has been a horrendous experience for Phil Hones and a turbulent time for CRU," he said. "We have had months of vilification against our most precious asset of scientific integrity which, as this report confirms yet again, was totally unjustified."

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, called for an apology from the sceptics. "I think those so-called sceptics who have attempted to undermine the credibility of climate change science on the basis of the hacked emails now need to apologise for misleading the public about their significance.”

SOURCE



Get real, ladies! Don't expect to find a man earning £100,000 who can cut down trees AND cook, says British lady who should know

Her tales of middle-class romantic yearning have earned her a multi-million-pound fortune and legions of fans. But Joanna Trollope has now claimed women have 'absurd' expectations when it comes to finding a husband.

The Cotswolds-born novelist, 66, says the growing number of women shunning marriage often have a misguided belief they will find the perfect man.

She has also criticised adulterous role models such as love rat footballer John Terry - who cheated on his wife with a team-mate's girlfriend - for promoting a 'babyish' attitude among men.

Joanna Trollope has had a turbulent love life herself, marrying and divorcing twice. She first wed at 22 to City banker David Potter, who she met at Oxford University. The couple went on to have two daughters, Louise, now 36, and Antonia, 33.

They split after 18 years when it emerged that he'd had a string of affairs. She also blamed her ambitious personality, saying: 'The sharp, high-achieving side is there and maybe it ranges from being merely irritating to downright intolerable.'

She met her second husband, television dramatist Ian Curteis, at a dinner party in 1983 and they wed 1985. She blamed her career for the breakdown of the marriage 15 years later, saying: 'It was when I was becoming more successful that our marriage began to go badly wrong.'

Twice-married Miss Trollope, who has made more than £15million from her 16 novels, insisted: 'People have to throw away this absurd Vera Wang shopping list which says of a man that he has to earn £100,000 a year, that he has to be able to cut down a tree, play the Spanish guitar, make love all night and cook me a cheese souffle.

'This is a ridiculously impossible wish list. You can change yourself and you can change the situation but you absolutely cannot change other people. Only they can do that. 'Do not go into a relationship trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. 'Be less adamant, more compromising, less whiney and princessy about it from a girl's point of view and less brutal about it from a boy's point of view.'

Vera Wang is a top wedding dress designer based in New York, whose work is worn by the rich and famous.

Referring to the latest onslaught of allegations surrounding British footballers who cheat, Miss Trollope said: 'We need modern young men to be more grown up. 'We're tired of the incontinence of the John Terrys of this world. It's babyish to behave in this stupid way.'

Miss Trollope's thoughts on women, made in a newspaper interview, echo those of MP David Willetts, who infamously claimed that the collapse of the family was being driven by a 'Bridget Jones generation' of well-educated young women who cannot find a suitable match.

In 2008, Mr Willetts said that for the first time, more women than men were gaining degrees - meaning that many were struggling to find a partner with an academic background and career prospects similar to their own.

Miss Trollope has always been outspoken on relationships. Last month, the writer, who is a grandmother, described turning 60 as 'liberating' because 'there's a cookie- cutter for each decade, but everybody loses interest when you're 60 so there's a blank sheet and you can be whoever you want to be'.

She added: 'Post menopause all sorts of relationships are quite different, and sex is too, because you're not going to get pregnant. 'There is no need to be that sort of cliché of a girl surrendering to a man and wanting to say "do you love and respect me?".'

And when asked if she would get married again, she laughed: 'No. No, no, no. I don't need to. Not as a grandmother. 'I don't want anybody saying to me, "Why are you going to see your children again this weekend, why aren't you going to be with me?" '

SOURCE



"Obesity" to be banned?

About time. The word has been way over-used. It was once only used for grossly fat people, not people of middling weight

"Let's say you were carrying a few extra pounds -- would you rather be labeled "obese" or "fat"? City officials in Liverpool, England, evidently prefer the latter and are considering banning the word obesity from all official communications.

It's all because they feel that the word obese is too offensive, especially when it comes to kids. Officials at Liverpool's town hall would rather use the term "unhealthy weight" because it doesn't stigmatize overweight children as much.... "The idea is that obesity has a negative connotation behind it," he added....

Tam Fry of the obesity prevention charity the Child Growth Foundation certainly doesn't think so. "I can see where the children are coming from and the word carries a stigmatization but unfortunately some times schoolchildren have to be taught the realities of life," he told the Daily Mail. "If you have a problem, particularly when it's as serious as this, it needs addressing."

It's not certain whether the change will go through -- the proposal will be considered over the next few months -- but a spokesperson for the Liverpool city council insisted there would only be a subtle difference if it did.

Source

The term "unhealthy weight" is a bit nuts too. Anorexics have an unhealthy weight but they sure aren't fat. What's wrong with "fat", anyway? Too simple and not judgmental enough, I guess.

Funny that we are allowed to be judgmental about people's weight but are not allowed to judgmental about other things -- such as homosexuality. And, because of AIDS, homosexuality is a lot more likely to kill you than being fat is.





14 April, 2010

British doctors 'losing skills because of EU rules'

European cuts to junior doctors hours means in 'ten year's time the NHS will have surgeons who do not know how to operate', a survey has warned.

In August last year junior doctors' hours were cut from 56 per week to 48 leading to warnings that the NHS would be left short of medics while training would suffer.

Healthcare staffing agency Pulse and MedeConnect, a division of doctors.net, conducted a survey of 500 junior doctors. Two thirds said the cut in hours had had a detrimental effect on their training. One trainee surgeon said that in ten years time 'the NHS will find itself with a generation of surgeons who can’t operate'.

The effect of cutting the hours junior doctors are allowed to work is that they have to spend time on the wards looking after patients as well as carrying out operations and training needed to be competant consultants. The squeeze on hours, means one or the other suffers, junior doctors have warned.

Three quarters of those surveyed said the change in hours had meant there was insufficient cover on the wards and a lack of training opportunities.

Just one in six said the changes had resulted in an increase in study time and less than a third say it has reduced fatigue among juniors.

Almost half of those who said that the 48 hour week restriction has been detrimental to the quality of their training indicated that no one checks that they don’t exceed their legal working hours’ limit.

Four of of ten junior doctors said their trust was resorting to employing locums to fill gaps in the rotas.

John Black, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, said: "This research from Pulse is yet more damning evidence that EWTD is wreaking havoc on both service provision and doctors’ training. Not only is it impossible to deliver with current staff numbers, it is making life significantly worse for the very trainees it purports to protect.

"We’re seeing overwhelming evidence that shows trainees are frequently left exposed without adequate cover, are more exhausted than ever before and are struggling to access the necessary training required to progress their careers. "That they are voicing concerns about fitness to operate due to lacking of training is extremely worrying for the future of the health service.“

Kate Harris, spokesperson for Pulse, said: "It is a travesty that we find ourselves in this situation. At a time when skills shortages already exist, we should be doing everything possible to up skill our doctors, not hinder their career progression.

"Planned temporary cover is one way of addressing the rota gap issue so that, for example, doctors don’t get caught up covering for colleagues and can spend valuable time in the operating theatre shadowing consultants.”

A Department of Health spokesman said: "Employers are responsible to ensure that service rotas are designed and staffed appropriately, in accordance with the Working Time Regulations. "The Department of Health's overriding priority will continue to be ensuring that patients are safe and experience high quality, and effective care in the NHS.

"The Department of Health has set up a EWTD Reference group, which includes the Royal College of Surgeons and other interested parties to provide advice on ensuring rotas are compliant."

Dr Tim Ringrose, medical director of Doctors.net.uk, said: "The results indicate that administrators are struggling to assimilate the changes caused by the working time directive and that while standards of care remain high, it's required doctors to be unreasonably flexible.

"Worse still, and with implications for the future of quality healthcare, it also comes at the expense of their training and development."

SOURCE



Official British food advice for schools does a big turnaround

But some myths remain, of course -- such as the evils of salt. Salt deficiency is in fact far more dangerous than salty snacks

Toddlers are being fed too much fruit and insufficient carbohydrate to maintain their energy levels, according to a survey of English nursery schools.

Children are also given too much salty food, and the size of portions varies: some are big enough for 10-year-olds and others so small that they lack key nutrients. Parents are also blamed for putting pressure on staff to ban key sources of nourishment such as whole-fat milk and red meat.

The findings are released today by the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) which asked trading standards officers in 29 councils, including Cumbria, Hampshire and Leicestershire, to check on the lunches and snacks offered by 118 nurseries over a five-day period.

The results provide a nationwide snapshot of the food offered to more than 600,000 children who spend up to ten hours a day at nursery.

One surprise is the lack of food in mid-morning and the afternoon. Some children received only half an apple or pear to keep them going until lunch. In the afternoon some were not offered a snack at all, and for those that were, it was often banana pieces or grapes.

There was no evidence of children starving and most nurseries tried to offer a good diet. However, too many meals were based on ham, sausages and other processed meat. Overuse of packet mixes for gravy and other sauces were blamed for the high salt content of meals.

Some nursery schools were also criticised for serving too much bread, and others for excessive use of cheese, which can be high in salt. Too many lunch plates were also short of green vegetables, pulses, eggs, oily fish and red meat, which are good sources of iron, zinc and calcium for a child.

Council chiefs now want guidance for nurseries, childminders and parents on suitable food.

Paul Bettison, LACORS chairman, said: “Most people assume it’s all about beating obesity, but nutrition problems can also be caused by not giving children enough of the types of food they need. For many adults, drinking skimmed milk, eating no red meat and loads of fruit is wonderful, but it’s not what a growing body needs.”

Most nursery schools were independent, he said, and if parents were unhappy, they would move their children.

“Nurseries have a dilemma — do they do what they know is right or do they do what parents think is right? A diet for mum and dad is not the diet for a three-year-old. Parents need to be taught what is best for their children.”

Helen Crawley, of City University, London, is director of the Caroline Walker Trust, which promotes good diet. She said: “This highlights the need for new guidance for under-5s. But it depends on each child, how long they spend in a nursery and what they eat at home. I am part of an advisory group to make recommendations to the Government by the summer.”

The Basingstoke College of Technology nursery was giving children insufficient carbohydrate but has changed its snacks to fruit or carrot sticks plus crackers, bread sticks, toast, oatcakes, scones, flapjacks, cheese cubes, houmus or fromage frais.

Source



Perverted British prosecutors again

"Minorities" can do no wrong. "Not in the public interest" to prosecute them, even for gross crimes

A gang of boys who molested a girl of 14 have escaped prosecution because it is 'not in the public interest'. The eight, aged from eight to 12, sexually assaulted the teenager as she walked to a friend's house during the day.

For five minutes they 'mauled her like animals', before she escaped. A 14-year-old girl, pictured with her mother, is outraged after the CPS decided not to pursue charges against her alleged attackers

A 14-year-old girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, and her mother have told of their outrage after the CPS decided not to pursue charges against her alleged attackers.

Officers arrested the five boys aged over ten - the legal age of responsibility - and recommended charges. But they are said to be furious after the Crown Prosecution Service refused to press charges, saying insufficient evidence meant it was not in the public interest.

It is thought it could prove hard to establish which of the boys, from Slovakian gipsy families, carried out different parts of the attack.

Last night the girl's 34-year-old mother condemned the authorities for failing to protect her daughter. The mother, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said: 'These dangerous little thugs are allowed to walk the streets. 'I shudder to think what will happen if they attack another girl. I'm deeply disappointed with the CPS. 'Something has to be done, if only to deter these yobs from ever doing anything so despicable again. But they're going to be smug as hell.'

The girl's ordeal took place as she walked in the Hillfields area of Coventry at midday on January 6.

The boys, from local Romany migrant families who settled in the city in the late 1990s, threw snowballs at her to attract her attention before surrounding her. They then touched her 'all over', telling her she was pretty and saying they wanted her to be their girlfriend, she said.

West Midlands Police prepared a file for the CPS recommending charges be brought - but prosecutors refused. CPS spokesman Patrick Noonan said: 'The age of the alleged attackers is not a difficulty.

'I have spoken to the prosecutor concerned and they have gone through the evidence in detail and decided it is not in the public interest to prosecute.'

Last night the girl described how she still suffers from nightmares and does not dare leave the house alone. Her family have moved in with relatives at the other side of the city out of fear they will have to face the attackers again.

The 14-year-old, who wants to be a doctor when she is older, broke down as she said: 'I still have nightmares and can hear them laughing and mauling me like animals.'

The CPS decision not to prosecute left her feeling as if she had not been believed, she added. 'I did nothing wrong but still feel like I'm being treated like a liar,' she said. 'After what happened I get scared really easily. 'I can't even go out to meet my mates because I might bump into one of the people who attacked me. 'I'm not really sure how I can move on from this. I'm having to borrow my cousin's dog just to walk around because I don't feel safe.'

West Midlands Police sources said they were 'frustrated' by the decision after the girl 'was brave enough to come forward'. A force spokesman said: 'We've done all we can to try to bring the case forward - there is nothing more we can do.'

SOURCE



Amnesty organization now no friend of liberty

The issue between Amnesty International and Gita Sahgal is not a personnel dispute. It is about the type of organisation that Amnesty has become. Its critics charge that it has diluted its defence of universal human rights by allying with a group that rejects that principle. By its treatment of Ms Sahgal, and its grudging and euphemistic explanation for its behaviour, Amnesty has confirmed that the critics are right.

Amnesty was founded in 1961 to support individual prisoners of conscience. It built a formidable reputation for identifying nonviolent dissenters, writing to them, and collectively nagging the regimes that had locked them up. It did this vital work, of solidarity and lobbying, regardless of politics. Yet Amnesty has ended up collaborating with people who have fundamentally different motivations and values. Moazzam Begg, the British former inmate at Guantánamo Bay, and the organisation Cageprisoners do not promote liberty and pluralism. They defend radical Islam.

Begg left Britain with his family in 2001 to live under the Taleban in Afghanistan – a place of violent suppression of supposedly heretical branches of Islam, as well as the subjugation of women and the quasi-judicial murder of homosexuals. Begg now asserts “the right of people to resist the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan”. An organisation such as Amnesty, which emphasises international legal standards, is apparently unconcerned that Begg is referring to multilateral forces who operate under a UN mandate to support constitutional government.

Ms Sahgal went public with her misgivings about her employer only after repeated expressions of her concern. She found herself summarily suspended, and the breach has now been made formal. Amnesty’s public statements about her case have been reflexively obtuse. In defending its work with Begg, it insists that he “never used a platform he shared with Amnesty to speak against the rights of others” – as if the objection to Begg were about his diplomacy rather than his beliefs.

Amnesty was once so concerned not to compromise its political impartiality that, even during the mass killings by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, in the 1970s, it preferred to lobby governments directly rather than to denounce them. Yet in 2005 it described the US detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay as “the gulag of our times” and was a natural ally for extremists such as Begg.

Someone who has suffered the restriction of liberty does not become thereby the friend of liberty. Disastrously for itself and those who depend on its support, Amnesty is no longer the friend of liberty either.

SOURCE



The secular inquisition: "The New Atheist campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism. There is nothing remotely positive in the demand that British cops lock up the pope and then drag him to some international court on charges of ‘crimes against humanity.’ Instead it springs from an increasingly desperate and discombobulated secularism, one which, unable to assert itself positively through Enlightening society and celebrating the achievements of mankind, asserts itself negatively, even repressively, through ridiculing the religious.”





13 April, 2010

Pregnant women more likely to die in UK than Poland

Anybody who has heard the complaints from British pregnant women about how they are neglected in NHS hospitals will know the cause of this -- despite the attempted whitewash below

The maternal death rate in the UK is worse than Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic and has not improved in the last twenty years, a major report has found.

The number of deaths of pregnant women, those in childbirth or who have died shortly after giving birth has not changed substantially in the UK since 1990, the study in The Lancet found. The UK lies 23rd in the study of 181 countries and has twice the death rate of Italy, which has the lowest in the world.

The researchers calculated that eight out of every 100,000 pregnant women die in the UK. This was worst than the average for Western Europe, at seven in every 100,000, and is higher than several Central European countries.

Women in the UK are more likely to die during pregnancy, birth or shortly afterwards than in Albania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, the study found. The UK maternal death rate is also worse than many comparable countries in Western Europe including Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, Austria, Sweden and Luxembourg.

It is thought a large immigrant population, who tend to present to antenatal services late, and the rise in obesity, which causes complications, are to blame.

Recent investigations have also suggested that substandard care may have been involved in more than half of deaths of pregnant women, according to the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (Cemach).

The majority of Western European countries saw a drop in their death rates between 1990 and 2008, the report by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington and colleagues at the University of Queensland. Across the 181 countries there has been an average annual drop in death rates of 1.5 per cent.

Six countries account for more than half of all maternal deaths: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "The NHS is committed to helping all women have the best pregnancy experience possible, by providing safe, high quality maternity care tailored to a person's individual needs. The UK remains one of the safest countries in which to give birth. "The fact that there are so few deaths is a tribute to the skills of all maternity health professionals in this country."

SOURCE



How the (now discredited) five-a-day mantra was born

It all began with a catchy number and a marketing campaign — not hard science -- just like the "safe" alcohol intake allowances that governments proclaim. Official health advice again shown to be unworthy of trust

It is one of the most successful indoctrinations in modern Britain, filtering into every aspect of public life.

I start my day on a bus decorated with the injunction to eat five-a-day, I drop my son off at a nursery where he learns to count using the Government’s five-a-day fruit and vegetable quota, and at the supermarket it is slapped anywhere it will confer a commercial advantage.

We have swallowed it whole and, when we swallow the five-a-day, we believe we gain a kind of magic protection. Or we did until last week’s news that the biggest study of its kind, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, showed that the reduced cancer risk by eating five-a-day didn’t add up to more than a hill of beans.

This made me a bit queasy. Where did this five-a-day order — promoted by government, the NHS, the American Cancer Society and more than 25 other countries — come from? Fuelled by a two-a-day-diet — ketchup and an olive — I tracked the global health campaign. The trail took me back 25 years, to a woman in California, and left me with little appetite for public health advice.

“The world has gone mad with targets,” says Tim Lang, the first stop in my quest. I’d tried the Department of Health, and was told its five-a-day programme was announced in 2000, based on World Health Organisation advice about the role of diet in cancer, but that didn’t really tell the full story.

Lang, a professor of food policy at City University, remembers it differently. It was the late 1990s, the new Labour Government had come to power and set about instilling a target-driven culture in every aspect of British life.

“We all understand targets in the policy world. I remember being in the room when we were being briefed by Americans on five-a-day, which we adopted from them. They chose five partly as it was considered a nice round sum and partly because it seemed possible, given how low consumption of fruit and vegetables was.”

The Department of Health was searching for a motivational tool for a nation of poor eaters and the ready-made American campaign based on the number five seemed catchy. What, I say? Can this really be true — the five in five-a-day was chosen for marketing purposes?

“Five-a-day was an attempt to shift culture, which is not the same thing as saying eating five-a-day will protect everyone. It was a political judgment, but not a bad one.”

Hippocrates said “let food be thy medicine”, but was this “let modern branding be thy medicine”? Walter Willett, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard University, is one of the world’s most eminent nutrition researchers. His career, though, has been distinguished by disproving excitably reported ideas about “superfoods” rather than forming them.

In 1991 the American Government adopted the five-a-day policy, as growing numbers of experts were stating that bad food was causing cancer. First and foremost among them was Britain’s esteemed Sir Richard Doll, the scientific hero who established the link between cigarettes and cancer. In 1981 he estimated that a third of cancer deaths in the West could have been avoided with a better diet.

When Sir Richard spoke, the world took notice and, by 2007, says Willett, the experts proclaimed that eating a load of fruit and veg could reduce your cancer risk by 50 per cent. The American National Cancer Institute upped its recommendations to nine-a-day.

“It was a pretty rough, arbitrary number, which is always the case with any target,” says Willett. But, he adds, the studies were fatally flawed. “They were based on retrospective evidence — asking people about their diet after they had already got cancer, which can lead people to report differently. Also, the control groups were not perfectly random, the people who volunteer for that kind of thing are much more health-conscious individuals.”

So, from where did the US Government get the idea for the number five, if not the scientific studies? I was closing in. Marion Nestle, nutrition professor at New York University, thinks she remembers exactly where.

“It was Susan Foerster, the head nutritionist in California. She had the bright idea of promoting fruit and vegetable consumption in a state which was a big fruit and vegetable producer.”

The American National Cancer Institute admits that “no studies have tested the impact of specific numbers of servings on cancer risk”. But it says five was chosen in California in 1988, as it doubled the average consumption, and “the number five was memorable and provided a platform for creative message and programme delivery”.

In America now, the five-a-day message is “invisible; [it has] completely dropped off the radar”, says Nestle.

Britain, though, has taken California’s 1980s marketing policy and run with it.“We have to abandon this idea that there’s something miraculous in diet,” says Paulo Boffetta, the doctor behind last week’s study. “It’s not true for fruit and vegetables as a whole, and even less true for fruit and vegetables individually.”

And by the way, as everyone I spoke to emphasised, an unexpected surprise of all this research is the discovery that although it may not do much for cancer, eating fruit and vegetables is good for your heart. How many a day? Don’t ask. [Rubbish! The findings for heart disease were inconclusive]

SOURCE



University-educated women are the heaviest drinkers

This is not exactly surprising. Alcohol plays a big part in student social life (dare I mention the Bullingdon club?) -- and apparently the habit persists. Additionally, smarter people tend to earn more so can more easily afford wine with dinner etc.

Women who went to university consume more alcohol than their less-highly-educated counterparts, a major study has found. Those with degrees are almost twice as likely to drink daily, and they are also more likely to admit to having a drinking problem. A similar link between educational attainment and alcohol consumption is seen among men, but the correlation is less strong.

The findings come from a comprehensive study carried out at the London School of Economics in which researchers tracked the lives of thousands of 39-year-old women and men, all born in the UK during the same week in 1970.

The report concludes: "The more educated women are, the more likely they are to drink alcohol on most days and to report having problems due to their drinking patterns. "The better-educated appear to be the ones who engage the most in problematic patterns of alcohol consumption."

Women's alcohol consumption can even be predicted from their scores in school tests taken when they are as as young as five. Women who achieved "medium" or "high" test marks as schoolgirls are up to 2.1 times more likely to drink daily as adults.

The authors of the report, Francesca Borgonovi and Maria Huerta, suggest several possible explanations as to why better-educated women drink more.

They tend to have children later, postponing the responsibilities of parenthood. They may have more active social lives or work in male-dominated workplaces with a drinking culture. As girls, they may have grown up in middle-class families and seen their parents drink regularly.

In the long-term study, the LSE team followed all the people born in Britain during one week in 1970, asking them questions about their lifestyle at regular periods throughout their lives.

The number of people for whom information was available has varied over the course of the research between 9,665 and 17,287.

The researchers took account of each individual's school test results and level of academic attainment, as well as their answers to regularly-administered surveys in which they were asked questions such as "Have you ever felt you should cut down on your drinking?" and "Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves or get rid of a hangover?"

Women with some educational qualifications were 71 per cent more likely to drink on most days compared to women with no qualifications. Women with degree-level qualifications were 86 per cent more likely to do so.

Higher educated women were 1.7 times more likely to have a drinking problem, as assessed through their questionnaire answers, than their less-well-educated counterparts. Women who scored highly in tests while at school were also at greater risk of having drinking problems.

Whereas women with medium or high childhood test scores were up to 2.1 times more likely to have a drink most days, men who scored similarly-high scores were only 49 per cent more likely to do so.

"Both males and females who achieved high-level performance in test scores administered at ages five and 10 are significantly more likely to abuse alcohol than individuals who performed poorly on those tests," says the report, in the journal Social Science and Medicine.

According to the study, a substantial part of the educational effect is likely to be due to better-educated women having more opportunities and tending to have middle-class lifestyles, exposing them to circumstances that favour alcohol consumption.

"Reasons for the positive association of education and drinking behaviours may include: a more intensive social life that encourages alcohol intake; a greater engagement into traditionally male spheres of life, a greater social acceptability of alcohol use and abuse; more exposure to alcohol use during formative years; and greater postponement of childbearing and its responsibilities among the better educated," says the report.

Commenting on the findings, a spokesman for the Alcohol Concern charity said: "This raises concerns which need to be addressed. "People with higher qualifications have more disposable income, and we have seen a trend where there has been an increase in the marketing of wine, particularly aimed at working women.

"People who abuse alcohol face a higher risk of suffering from health problems incluidng cancer, liver cirrhosis, lung and cardiovascular disease, and mental and behavioural issues."

SOURCE



British PM is blasted over immigration plans

Critics have branded Gordon Brown’s immigration promises “too little, much too late”. The PM was yesterday blasted for jumping on the border control bandwagon to try to win votes.

Labour have also been accused of trying to con voters with sweeping policy claims. Their manifesto, officially launched yesterday, sets out a raft of pledges on migrants but fails to call for a limit on the numbers flooding in.

Labour were also accused of spin over claims they would make all migrants in public sector jobs take English tests. But their pledge only applies to workers who deal with the public.

Migrationwatch chairman Sir Andrew Green, 58, hit out at Brown, saying: “Given Labour’s record of admitting three million immigrants in the last 13 years, this manifesto is too little, much too late.”

And fuming Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, 48, said: “Labour have let immigration get out of control. We can’t trust them to fix it now. “It is a shocking indictment of this government’s immigration policy that they have even had to introduce this pledge. “No previous governments would have issued visas to foreign workers providing a service in the public sector who couldn’t speak English.”

The manifesto extends English language tests to cover workers such as nurses, community support officers, social workers and call centre staff.

At present, the requirement is only for doctors from outside Europe, police officers and teachers.

The manifesto states: “We know that migrants who are fluent in English are more likely to work and find it easier to integrate. So as well as making our English test harder, we will ensure it is taken by all applicants before they arrive.”

Brown, 59, added: “We will ensure that all employees who have contact with the public have an appropriate level of English language competence.”

The manifesto also pledges to rely on a points system for immigration, rather then automatically granting citzenship after a set period in Britain.

And it promises that access to benefits and housing will “increasingly be reserved for British citizens and permanent residents”.

Brown also claimed that more EU and other foreign prisoners would be transferred abroad.

SOURCE



Speaking freely about the unspeakable

By Luke Malpass

The performance of a play discussing the British Nationalist Party (BNP) has been banned by the town council of Dudley in the North of England for fear it would offend the local Asian community and appease right-wing sympathisers.

The play, ‘Moonfleece,’ has already been shown in racially diverse areas of Britain without causing riots in the streets. The offence to free speech is made worse by the fact the play – which features a multicultural cast – is hardly a rabble rousing treatment of the subject of race and racism.

In fact, it critically examines the ‘new-look’ BNP (which recently altered its articles to permit non-white members) and exposes the continuing brutality behind right-wing nationalism.

Racism is an unspeakable thing. But it must never become a subject we can’t speak freely about.

Insidious racism must be countered, and one way society critiques itself is through the arts. Movies, songs, and plays constantly explore the themes of diversity and acceptance regardless of race, class, or sex. This is one of the ways people challenge their preconceptions and discover their better selves.

Britain was once renowned as the home of free speech. Banning ‘Moonfleece’ to not offend anyone appears to be mindless hyper-sensitivity. But the fact that the civic fathers and mothers of Dudley thought a serious play about serious subject could not go on stage ‘up north’ has more dire implications.

This suggests the social fabric in these communities might have frayed to breaking point. The irony, therefore, is that a play dealing with the rise of right-wing extremism could not be more timely.

The above is a press release from the Centre for Independent Studies, dated April 9. Enquiries to cis@cis.org.au. Snail mail: PO Box 92, St Leonards, NSW, Australia 1590.



Judge in charge of British family courts criticises ‘arrogant social workers’

Good to hear an eminent judge saying what I have so often said

Social workers have been criticised as “arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents” by the judge who takes charge of the family courts today.

Lord Justice Wall said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.

In a separate case, on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West of England”.

The criticism of social workers from two of the most senior family court judges came as the number of children placed in care has reached a record high after the Baby Peter tragedy.

Social workers say that they are not prepared to take any chances after the death of the 17-month-old toddler at the hands of his mother, her lover and their lodger in Hackney, East London. He was being monitored by social workers at the time of his death.

The remarks are likely to be seen as a warning to social workers not to take children into care before all other avenues have been exhausted. They may also be seen as a signal to the family courts to challenge more robustly legal orders to take children into care.

Lord Justice Wall made his comments in a highly critical ruling against Greenwich Council, where social workers had taken two children into care and begun adoption proceedings despite their natural mother’s best efforts to change her life. The Greenwich case involved a mother known as “EH”, who is seeking the return of her son “R”, aged 5, and daughter “RA”, aged 2, from care.

The children were taken into care in 2008 after the parents had taken RA, then a baby, to hospital, where her left upper arm was found to be broken. Doctors considered that the injuries were not accidental, social services were informed and both children were removed from their parents that day.

Initially they went to live with their maternal grandmother but were moved into foster care after a dispute between the grandmother and their father. Since June last year the father ceased to have any contact with the children and the mother has attempted to separate from him, alleging domestic violence.

Social workers refused to believe that the relationship was over, while rebuffing the mother’s request for help in ending the relationship. Lord Justice Wall described the conduct of the social workers as “hard to credit”. “Here was a mother who needed and was asking for help to break free from an abusive relationship. She was denied that help abruptly and without explanation. That, in my judgment, is very poor social work practice,” he said.

“What social workers do not appear to understand is that the public perception of their role in care proceedings is not a happy one. They are perceived by many as the arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system, and as trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process. This case will do little to dispel that.” The adoption order has now been set aside after the ruling made last Friday.

In the Devon case, on which Lord Justice Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens criticised the actions of social workers in pursuing plans to have a baby adopted without giving his mother a last chance to show that she could look after him. The Devon legal team was given time to read the Greenwich judgment and withdrew their case.

Lord Justice Wall will be sworn in today as the president of the High Court’s Family Division. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, originally challenged his appointment. Lord Justice Wall has been an outspoken critic of some government policies, including the funding of family courts.

SOURCE



How Eton inspired British Conservatives' 'national service' plan

A plan with good precedents

David Cameron spoke of his own community service at Eton College as he launched plans for a National Citizenship Service for young people. The Tory leader told how he volunteered to visit elderly and vulnerable people, as well as joining the school’s cadet force.

Community service has long been seen as a key element of life at independent schools – particularly boarding schools – as a life-enhancing supplement to the rigours of academic study.

At Eton, the school’s social service programme forms part of the extra-curricular timetable for most sixth-formers. Each boy at the £29,000-a-year school in Windsor is expected to take part in voluntary activities up to twice a week.

This includes reading and playing sport with children at state primary schools, visiting the elderly at home, helping at day centres, working in charity shops and taking food and clothing to homeless people in Slough. Some boys have also tended to the grave of a soldier from Eton Wick killed during the Second World War.

Other independent schools expect pupils to take part in similar programmes – usually for one afternoon every week.

At Wellington College, Berkshire, community service projects - a 150-year-old school tradition - include volunteering at a local centre for the mentally handicapped, tutoring students at local schools and reading to the elderly. Students also traditionally volunteer with the National Trust and the college’s own estate team.

The Combined Cadet Force (CCF) is also a hugely prominent part of life in independent schools. There are currently around 200 cadet force units in the private sector, compared with just 50 in state schools.

Asked at a news conference whether he had done voluntary service, Mr Cameron said: "Yes, I did. At the school I went to there was a choice: you could either join the cadet force or you could do social services.

"Being a community-spirited sort of person I decided to do both. "I was in the cadet force and I also did visits to elderly, vulnerable people in Windsor, visiting them in their homes and doing their shopping and things like that, which I hugely enjoyed."

SOURCE





12 April, 2010

Health chiefs' pay bonanza: As nurses' salaries are squeezed, NHS bureaucrats pocket 7% rise

The pay of NHS bosses has soared by almost 7 per cent in a year - more than twice the rise for nurses. There are now 25 health trust chief executives earning more than the Prime Minister's salary of £192,400.

The Opposition seized on the figures as further evidence that Labour cannot be trusted to keep public spending under control. They show that trusts rejected a request from ministers to limit senior managers' pay rises to 2.2 per cent. Some have been offering sky-high pay to entice people from the private sector or poach them from other trusts.

The elevation of hospital trusts to foundation status - with greater financial independence - has often been accompanied by sharp increases in top salaries.

Last week the Tories promised to peg the salaries of public sector bosses to no more than 20 times the lowest-paid employee.

Critics slammed the 6.7 per cent rise as the latest example of the pay bonanza in the Health Service, which has seen billions of taxpayers' money go on extra money for staff - GPs and consultants as well as managers - rather than better services for patients.

The news came as it emerged that the Tory election manifesto, to be unveiled tomorrow, will promise to make GPs available from 8am to 8pm and give them back responsibility for out-of-hours care.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said last night: 'These soaring pay packages are a financial drain and a huge political problem. Pay restraint is essential throughout the public sector, and it must start at the top if those further down the pecking order are going to accept it.

'For far too long the Government has indulged in massive pay rises for senior NHS staff and now they have come to expect ever-increasing amounts of taxpayers' money regardless of the economic reality.'

Janet Davies, director of service delivery at the Royal College of Nursing, said: 'It is difficult to expect nurses and other staff to be happy with their pay award when staff in their boardroom are getting three times as much. At a time when the NHS is expected to make significant savings, pay must be seen to be fair.'

Sharon Holder, national officer for the GMB union, said: 'What a disgrace it is to see an Upstairs Downstairs model, with the top echelons on the gravy train and low-paid workers whose job it is to stop the spread of viruses not getting the pay they are entitled to.'

The pay study, from Incomes Data Services, used figures from more than 380 NHS trusts in England. It found that chief executives typically earned £150,000. But there are wide variations and 19 earn more than £200,000. The highest-paid was Ron Kerr at Guy's and St Thomas' in central London, on £270,000.

Bosses at 'elite' NHS foundation trusts - some of which are the subject of concerns about substandard care - received £10,000 more on average than those managing normal trusts.

The increase in pay is not entirely the result of boards awarding huge rises. It is also a result of a 'merry-go-round' of public sector jobs, with people seeing their pay increase markedly as they move. NHS bosses who swap trusts also enjoy the advantage of staying in a lucrative pension scheme. The 6.7 per cent rise for the top brass follows a 6.4 per cent increase the previous year. It is far above the 2.75 per cent for nurses in 2008/09.

Steve Tatton, editor of the IDS NHS Boardroom Pay Report 2010, said: 'Our survey will not make comfortable reading for those wishing to see those at the top leading from the front on wage restraint. 'These are undoubtedly testing times for those making decisions - balancing recruitment and motivation against the need to keep tight control of the public purse. But it seems the equation has fallen on the side of high salary awards.'

But Nigel Edwards, director of policy at the NHS Confederation, which represents trusts, said many hospitals had problems attracting candidates - forcing them to put up pay. He said: 'NHS organisations are large and complex and the skills required to lead them are considerable and scarce. 'A large city hospital could have a budget of £500million to £1billion and employ 10,000 staff - comparable to many FTSE 250 companies.'

A spokesman for Guy's and St Thomas' said: 'The pay of our chief executive, Ron Kerr, reflects the experience, expertise and responsibility that the role demands, and we are delighted to have a chief executive of his calibre.

'Guy's and St Thomas' is one of the largest, most complex and successful NHS Foundation Trusts in the country. With an annual turnover in excess of £900million and a strong track record for both the delivery of high-quality care and for sound financial management, we expect to have an executive team which can deliver exceptional performance.'

The Department of Health said: 'NHS and foundation trusts are independent organisations and set their senior pay in the light of the recommendations of their independent remuneration committees - there are no central targets. All pay arrangements over £150,000 a year must now be publicly justified.'

SOURCE



British school inspection shambles

Emphasis on bureaucratic trivia rather than looking at how the school is doing in facing its challenges

Three schools judged to be "inadequate" by Ofsted were later told that they were actually "outstanding", in a move which has raised concerns over the quality of inspections.

A total of nine schools inspected by Ofsted last term were initially given wrong judgements, it can be revealed. In three of the cases cases, schools told by inspectors that they faced a "notice to improve" – the category just above a failed inspection – were reassessed and then given the very best official rating.

Critics said the U-turns cast serious doubt on the accuracy and fairness of Ofsted's new inspection regime, introduce at the start of this academic year. The regime has already been accused by the state and independent sectors of focusing on the wrong things.

Head teachers said they were appalled that schools could be misjudged to such a degree and that primaries and secondaries were facing ruin on the basis of "arbitrary" rulings. A poor inspection report can sound the death knell for a school, as rolls dwindle and staff leave.

Mick Brookes, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: "How can you possibly have a judgement of inadequate and in the next breath, rate the school as outstanding? "It totally undermines the validity of the inspection and raises serious questions about the quality of inspections. "There is mounting pressure for a review of this system and this revelation adds to it."

Christine Blower, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "Whether the judgement of inspectors is at fault or schools are being initially failed on trivial matters, both are very serious flaws. "This calls in to question the whole Ofsted regime."

Every time a school is judged "inadequate" during an inspection, the finding is subjected to a "moderation process" in which Ofsted reviews the reasons for the provisional rating. Among six schools inspected last term and initially rated "inadequate", three - one primary and two secondaries, all in the south of England - had their rating raised after moderation to the top category of "outstanding". Another had its rating improved to "good", while two became "satisfactory".

Three further schools which were facing "special measures", the category that schools are put in to when they fail their inspection, had that rating scrapped and were instead found after moderation to be merely "inadequate".

Head teachers said many more schools may have been given the wrong judgement but the mistakes would never be remedied because only initial verdicts of "inadequate" or "special measures" were put through the moderation process.

From September to December last year, Ofsted received 110 complaints relating to the 2,140 inspections carried out, but no ratings were changed as a result of the complaints. Ofsted refused to name the nine schools whose judgements had been overturned at moderation.

It said: "Schools may be moderated out of a provisional category. Moderation is a routine, rigorous and robust process. It is an integral part of our work to ensure consistency and high quality in our inspections and demonstrates that Ofsted is fair and transparent in its work."

As The Sunday Telegraph has revealed, schools in the state and independent sectors have fallen foul of stringent new rules on child safety and the early years curriculum which came in to force in September.

Transgressions which have resulted in schools being marked down during inspections have included failing to supervise a car park that did not belong to the school, and not giving child protection training to cooks. Other schools have been marked down over the wording of their school policies or how they store information.

Ofsted claimed that no school would fail an inspection for minor breaches, but the widely-differing judgements applied to some schools after the moderation process support claims that inspectors' judgements are overzealous or suspect.

Earlier this month, more than 80 MPs told Parliament they were "seriously concerned" about reports of Ofsted making "arbitrary" judgments leading to schools being marked down. Miles Coverdale Primary, in Shepherd's Bush, west London, was initially given a "notice to improve" after inspectors who carried out a two-day visit in January said it was "inadequate".

Tara Baig, the head teacher, was stunned – three years earlier Ofsted had rated the school as "good with outstanding features". Staff and governors became convinced they had been subjected to a flawed inspection process.

The school was marked down for failing to recycle its food waste, for not linking with a "leafy, suburban white" school to promote "community cohesion", even for the content of some pupils' packed lunches. A faulty electrical gate was deemed a risk to children's safety, even though the school was waiting for local authority contractors to fix it and it was kept locked at all times.

A recent improvement in attendance figures was not taken in to account and the verdict on teaching was only "satisfactory" despite a "good" rating for three-quarters of the lessons observed.

Evidence of an upward trend in results generally across all ages, including a massive jump in maths results for 11 year olds from 49 per cent to 90 per cent, was given much less weight than a dip in writing results, which the school had identified and was addressing.

Days after the school lodged a complaint with Ofsted, it was told that the moderation process had removed the notice to improve and raised the outcome to "satisfactory". But Mrs Baig still refuses to accept the rating and said the reputation of the school had been undermined by an "unjust" process. "The staff here work relentlessly and are highly committed. For them to be told that they were on the bottom rung was an absolute outrage," she said. "We are a good school and we have the evidence to prove it."

Inspectors visited St Thomas More Catholic Primary, in Coventry, after it was forced to move buildings because of structural defects discovered at the school. Rather than praise the school for coping in extreme circumstances over which it had no control, inspectors graded it as "satisfactory", in part because of shortcomings with the emergency accommodation.

Although some pupils were moved into the old junior school building, others were taught in six temporary classrooms which inspectors said lacked space, led to overcrowding and offered limited accessibility to outside areas.

Mary Wilson, the head teacher, said: "I expected officers to come here pleased with what we've been able to achieve considering what we were faced with. We are still in an emergency situation and I felt the report was unfair." Although Ofsted amended the wording of the published report after the school complained, the grading remained the same.

SOURCE



Commuter stress takes up to two years off your life

This study is better than most in that it compared people of similar income. It did not however compare them on purchasing power. People who need more purchasing power from their incomes (to fund larger families, for instance), may tend to move to generally less desirable locations and the health effects of that could be complex, with commuting times being only one factor

RESIDENTS of commuter towns should be worrying about more than the price of their season tickets. Those with long journeys face stresses that are taking up to two years off their life expectancy, new research has found.

People living in Watford, Hertfordshire, can expect to die 1.8 years earlier than the national average of 79.6 years, while the residents of Windsor, Maidenhead and Reading in Berkshire, and Brighton in East Sussex were all found to have a life expectancy of a year less than the national average for those earning similar incomes.

An area’s average life expectancy is usually closely correlated to average income, with London’s Kensington and Chelsea, one of the richest boroughs in the country, having the highest life spans.

However, new analysis by Club Vita, a pensions consultant owned by Hymans Robertson, an actuary, identified the areas where people of a given income level can expect to live significantly longer or shorter lives.

Andrew Gaches, a longevity consultant at Club Vita, said the research suggested the faster pace of life that is often blamed for a shorter life expectancy in London was now spreading beyond the capital.

“In all these commuter towns, life expectancy falls short of the level that you would expect people to have,” said Gaches. “It’s possible the pace of London life is starting to move outside the M25.”

Within London, however, there are more drastic anomalies, with life expectancy in some boroughs three years less than it should be. The usual life span in Islington, north London, regarded as the birthplace of new Labour, is 79.1, while the average across Britain for people who enjoy the same weekly household income of £817 is 81.3 years.

In Lambeth and Wandsworth, south London, residents also have a life span of around three years less than those on similar incomes living elsewhere in the UK.

By contrast, residents in nearby Westminster, central London, who earn slightly less than their neighbours in Wandsworth, tend to live 2.3 years longer than those earning a similar amount living elsewhere.

Best of all for those seeking a long retirement is Ceredigion in Wales, where people typically live 3.8 years longer than people on a comparable income elsewhere in the country.

The inhabitants of Berwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland, have an average household income of £533, which usually equates to a life expectancy of 78.9. However, they actually live to 81.8 years — a gain of nearly three years.

SOURCE



Tall women's salaries leave short girls in the shade

Research showing an advantage for tall people goes back many years but what is less clear is why. Certainly in Britain, upper class people are distinctly taller than the rest and class is undoubtedly still a major influence in British society. But why are upper class people taller? It could be part of a general syndrome of biological good function or it could mean that rich men prefer tall brides. Then you have to ask why that is ....

Maybe it is quite primitive. Tall women have tall sons and tall sons make more successful warriors. Is that enough speculation? Disclosure: My last bride was 5'11" tall. That's her below. Isn't she gorgeous?



It may be a tall order for some women to accept. But shorter females earn less than their loftier colleagues, a study claims. Those who stand at 5ft8in and above are twice as likely to earn more than £30,000 a year - or up to £5,000 more than their vertically challenged friends.

The researchers asked 1,461 women over the age of 16 to give details about their salary and measurements. A fifth of those questioned who fell into the 'tall' category said they earned £30,000 and above compared with 10 per cent of women under 5ft8in.

At the same time, 20 per cent of the tall women said they saw their height as a source of 'empowerment and authority' compared with just 5 per cent of shorter females.

And the study revealed that the taller you are, the more comfortable you are likely to be with your body. A quarter of women over 5ft8in said they would not change anything about themselves. In contrast, 90 per cent of females in the 'short' category said they were unhappy with their looks, the study for clothing chain Long Tall Sally found.

Arianne Cohen, author of The Tall Book: A Celebration Of Life From On High, said: 'Research shows that tall people are consistently more successful in the workplace. 'Not only do they earn more but they're more likely to be in leadership positions. 'As taller people have a downward eyecast when speaking to shorter colleagues, they are instinctively perceived to have authority and confidence.

'It means that those who are taller are respected by their colleagues and bosses, giving them a thriving atmosphere that leads them to more success.'

SOURCE



British campaigner urges UN to accept 'ecocide' as international crime

Oliver Cromwell was a moderate and tolerant man compared to these religious fanatics -- the Ayatollahs of environmentalism

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.

The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.

Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

"Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life," says Higgins. "It leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace."

Higgins, formerly a barrister in London specialising in employment, has already had success at the UN with a Universal Declaration for Planetary Rights, modelled on the human rights declaration. "My starting point was 'how do we create a duty of care to the planet, a pre-emptive obligation to not harm the planet?'"

After a successful launch at the UN in 2008, the idea has been adopted by the Bolivian government, who will propose a full members' vote, and Higgins has taken up her campaign for ecocide.

Ecocide is already recognised by dictionaries, but Higgins' more legal definition would be: "The extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished."

The ICC was set up in 2002 to hear cases for four crimes against peace: genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression (such as unprovoked war), and crimes against humanity.

Higgins makes her case for ecocide to join that list with a simple equation: extraction leads to ecocide, which leads to resource depletion, and resource depletion leads to conflict. "The link is if you keep over-extracting from your capital asset we'll have very little left and we will go to war over our capital asset, the last of it," adds Higgins, who has support in the UN and European commission, and among climate scientists, environmental lawyers and international campaign groups.

Although there is debate over how frequently people go to war over resources such as water, a growing number of important voices are arguing this case. Most recently Sir David King, the UK's former chief scientist, predicted a century of "resource wars", and in response to a report on resource conflicts by campaign group Global Witness, Lessons Unlearned, the UN appeared to accept many of the arguments.

Controversially, Higgins is suggesting ecocide would include damage done to any species - not just humans. This, she says, would stop prosecutions being tied up in legal wrangling over whether humans were harmed, as many environmental cases currently are.: "If you put in a crime that's absolute you can't spend years arguing: you take a soil sample and if it tests as positive it's bang to rights."

Under an ecocide law, which would be more potent because prosecutions would be against individuals such as directors rather than the companies, traditional energy companies could have to become largely clean energy companies, much extractive mining would have to be scaled back or stopped, chemicals which contaminate soil and water and kill wildlife would have to be abandoned and large-scale deforestation would not be possible. "I'm only just beginning to get to terms with how enormous that change will be," admits Higgins.

Higgins will launch her campaign through a website – thisisecocide.com – asking for global support to pressure national governments to vote for the proposed law if it is accepted by the UN Law commission. The deadline for the text is January, and a vote has been scheduled on other amendments in 2012. It would need a two-thirds majority of the 197 member countries to pass.

Higgins hopes the UN's "one member, one vote" system will help over-ride likely opposition of some nations and vested business interests. She also believes many businesses favour clear regulation because they fear a future public backlash. And she cites how, when the US entered world war two, its car manufacturers - despite initial opposition - made 10 times the number of aircraft originally asked for. "It shows you how industry can turn around very fast."

SOURCE



Thank God for the one man who has the courage to stand up to the British ruling elite's assault on Christianity

The following encomium to Lord Carey is by Melanie Phillips, who is Jewish. Lord Carey was one of the few Archbishops of Canterbury in recent times who clearly believed in God

The Church and the judiciary are two of the most venerable pillars of the establishment. But in an explosive development, war has been declared between them over one of the most fundamental aspects of our society - freedom of religious conscience.

In an unprecedented move, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, and other church leaders are calling upon the Master of the Rolls and other senior judges to stand down from future Court of Appeal hearings involving cases of religious discrimination because of the judges' perceived bias against Christianity.

The churchmen believe that because of these judges' past rulings, there is no chance of a 'fair' judgment if they hear the latest such case, which has been scheduled for Thursday .

This involves Gary McFarlane, formerly a Christian relationship counsellor for Relate. he is appealing against an employment tribunal ruling that upheld his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

According to newspaper reports, Lord Carey has prepared a witness statement in support of Mr McFarlane in which he will apparently accuse the Court of Appeal of making a series of 'disturbing' judgments and being responsible for some 'dangerous' reasoning which could lead to Christians being banned from the workplace.

In the light of recent events, such fears are scarcely exaggerated. For Christianity is under relentless attack from secular British institutions, as a result of which the freedom of Christians to practise their religion is being lost.

A steady stream of Christians have found themselves out of a job on account of their religious beliefs. When nurse Shirley Chaplin refused to remove her cross, for example, she was prevented by the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust from working with patients.

And when Duke Amachree, a Christian homelessness officer with Wandsworth council, advised a client to put her faith in God, he was promptly suspended, marched off the premises and then sacked.

In a string of other cases, Christians have been prevented from serving on adoption panels or as marriage registrars because their religious beliefs mean they cannot sanction civil partnerships or gay adoption.

Such employment difficulties reflect a wider institutional animus against Christianity. Teachers bend over backwards to promote other religions at its expense. The BBC and the artistic world miss no opportunity to trash it or hold it up to ridicule, while the political class and intelligentsia take an axe to its moral precepts on issues such as euthanasia, sex outside marriage and abortion.

Among some churchmen, there has been rumbling alarm about this for some time. Only last month, Lord Carey and a group of bishops wrote to the Press to denounce such 'discrimination' against churchgoers as 'unacceptable in a civilised society'.

But this new initiative elevates such protest to a very different level. To prevent discrimination against Christians being set in stone, Lord Carey wants religious discrimination cases to be heard by a special panel of judges with some knowledge of religious matters. As an insult to some of the biggest wigs in the land, this could hardly be exaggerated.

By throwing down the gauntlet to the judiciary in this way, Lord Carey is mounting a full-frontal challenge to some of those who most influence our society.

The last of several final straws for these clerics was the case of Lilian Ladele, a registrar who was sacked by Islington council after she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies because they were against her Christian beliefs. Led by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger - the second most important judge in england - the Appeal Court ruled that it was unlawful for her to refuse to do so.

It might be argued that these judges were merely ruling on the basis of anti-discrimination law and that they were right to do so. But in fact, these judges had discretion to rule in Ms Ladele's favour because the law upholds not one principle relevant to this case, but two - and they compete with each other. For enshrined in the European Convention on human Rights is the right to exercise religious conscience.

Why, then, did the judges in this case set aside the human Rights Convention, which they normally revere as holy Writ? Because, said Lord Neuberger, it only protected those religious beliefs which were 'worthy of respect in a democratic society and are not incompatible with human dignity'.

So what the Master of the Rolls effectively seemed to be saying was that Christian beliefs are unworthy of respect in a democracy, and incompatible with human dignity - a truly preposterous claim, since Judeo-Christian precepts invented the concept of human dignity

Indeed, such a ruling comes very close indeed to criminalising Christianity. For if putting Christian belief into practice is outlawed, it won't be long before Christian believers find themselves outlawed.

No wonder Lord Carey and his colleagues have been galvanised into militant action. For under the guise of promoting ' tolerance' and 'liberal' social attitudes, anti-discrimination law is deeply intolerant and illiberal.

That's because it has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with ideology. It is innately on the side of minorities on the basis that they are by definition vulnerable to the majority. So in the hands of the judiciary, it has turned into a fearsome weapon against Britain's mainstream attitudes and faith.

The result is that Christianity is now in danger of being turned into a despised and marginalised creed practised only by consenting adults in private.

Christians are already being forced into renouncing their religious beliefs if they want to remain in certain jobs. This is simply intolerable in a liberal society where freedom of religious conscience is a bedrock value.

Yet while Christians find themselves under the legal cosh, a double standard is employed towards certain minority faiths. Thus a Christian nurse is told she can't work with patients unless she removes her cross while Muslim NHS staff have been exempted from hygiene rules stipulating that their forearms must remain uncovered.

The relentless message from the top of our society is that Christianity - the foundation-stone of Western liberty, tolerance and democracy - is intolerant, bigoted and objectionable in contrast to other faiths. Their own precepts may be truly inimical to liberty or reason, but to these we must not turn a politically correct hair.

What Lord Carey has rightly grasped is that if the judiciary is not challenged and this process is not stopped, within a short space of time our society will have slid off the edge of a cultural cliff.

But he is having to fight more than the judiciary. For on this great issue - the defence of his religion and the values of this society - his successor, Dr Rowan Williams, is conspicuously silent. Indeed, more than that he is positively embracing his faith's destruction. For along with Lord Phillips, the former senior Law Lord, Dr Williams has welcomed the advance in Britain of Islamic sharia law - which really is inimical to democracy and equality.

The highest echelons of both the Church and the judiciary seem incapable of grasping why Christianity is crucial to this country and has to be upheld and defended against attempts to undermine and destroy it, from wherever such attacks may come. To which all one can say is thank God for Lord Carey - and doubtless he is saying so, too.

SOURCE



Politically correct reaction to a harmless joke causes a man to suicide

Britain:

"A medical technician killed himself after being suspended from work after someone complained that he made a politically-incorrect joke about a black friend. Roy Amor, 61, who was devastated at the prospect of losing his job making prosthetics, shot himself in the head outside his house.

He was facing a disciplinary investigation after suggesting to the black colleague that he ‘better hide’ when they noticed immigration officers outside their clinic. It is understood that the man was a close friend of Mr Amor and was not offended. However, it was overheard by someone else who lodged a formal complaint.

Five days after his suspension, Mr Amor received an email about the incident from his employers, Opcare, a private company that provides prosthetic and orthotic services to the NHS.

A few hours later police found his body in the road outside his home near Bolton, Lancashire, after being alerted by a neighbour.

Sources told The Mail on Sunday that he left three notes, all of which mention Opcare, including one written outside his workplace at 5pm on the day before he died in which he describes his despair....

Opcare chief executive Michael O’Byrne admitted that Mr Amor had been suspended over the joke.

Source

There is a new lot of postings by Chris Brand just up -- on his usual vastly "incorrect" themes of race, genes, IQ etc.





11 April, 2010

Inquiry into fears of botched NHS cancer diagnoses

Doctors fear that cases of cancer have been regularly missed in a scandal over botched diagnoses which goes back a decade. An NHS inquiry is examining more than 3,000 tissue samples after medics expressed concerns about misdiagnoses, including cases of patients who died following failures to detect their disease.

The investigation is being held behind closed doors and none of the evidence has been made public. [How British!]

Documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph disclose that four doctors from different hospitals in Bristol expressed concerns that critical and repeated blunders were being made by a laboratory at one of the city's hospitals. Cases include a 55-year-old woman who died three years after an NHS biopsy failed to detect breast cancer.

Jane Hopes, who was a senior NHS manager in Bristol, was never told that doctors at the hospital where she worked believed a critical error had been made in diagnosing a lump in her breast as benign, when the disease was at its early stages. Her bereaved family told this newspaper that they had not been told about the concerns, or that the case was part of a major investigation which began last June. Mrs Hopes' case was one of 26 in which doctors had raised specific concerns about misdiagnosis.

Submissions by specialist doctors said other serious errors had caused the death of a child, while other patients were treated for the wrong disease, received a late diagnosis, or were given needless toxic treatment. The consultants wrote to NHS bosses in 2007, and again in 2008, expressing concerns about the standards of pathology at Bristol Royal Infirmary (BRI) and citing allegations of misdiagnoses dating back to 2000.

The letters, submitted in evidence to the inquiry, describe how attempts to alert senior management to potential problems were met with "hostility and denial".

They allege recent misdiagnoses of adult patients with cancer, as well as "disastrous" failings in the diagnosis of seriously ill children. One letter sent to senior managers in June 2007 includes a dossier of 11 cases, including that of Mrs Hopes, who died in 2004. The document describes a "system failure" which meant serious blunders were either not detected or not acted on.

The claims relate to blunders in four specialist areas of pathology, serving lung, gynaecology, breast, and dermatology patients, as well as in the diagnosis of children by BRI, which is run by University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (UHB).

Documents sent to the UHB's chief executive in 2008 describe serious diagnostic errors and omissions in gynaecology detected over a two-year period by one specialist pathologist from another hospital, who encountered "hostility and denial" after trying to raise concerns.

Most of the doctors still working in the health service were too fearful to talk publicly about the evidence submitted to the inquiry, which is due to report later this year. But Dr Richard Spicer, a paediatric cardiac surgeon who retired from UHB in April 2008, told The Sunday Telegraph of his repeated attempts to warn senior managers of the risks posed to patients.

The specialist paediatrician said too many tests to detect diseases in children were being carried out by pathologists without paediatric expertise, with "disastrous results". As a result, children were diagnosed with the wrong grade of cancer, which required heavier doses of toxic radiotherapy and chemotherapy than they needed. Dr Spicer said: "I went to the chairman in desperation, because all the managers were doing nothing about the concerns raised."

His evidence to the inquiry describes cases where children's cancers were misdiagnosed, and other illnesses missed, including one case which resulted in a child's death. Incident reports were lodged, but nothing was done about them, said the paediatrician. "I filed critical reports, but it was like a black hole," said Dr Spicer. "Nothing was done about them – the lessons which needed to be learned were never acted upon."

The week before Dr Spicer retired in April 2008, he told Graham Rich, then UHB's chief executive, of his fears that the service remained unsafe, with major problems when the service's paediatric pathologist was away.

In evidence to the inquiry, specialists from other Bristol hospitals describe how they detected errors made by the infirmary. But not all units carry out the same kind of review, leaving specialists with concerns that many more errors might have gone unnoticed.

Last summer, Bristol GP Phil Hammond went public about the concerns of local consultants. As a result, the trust opened an independent inquiry, chaired by a barrister, and ordered an audit of a random sample of 3,500 specimens. But experts are concerned that high numbers of errors in specialist areas might not be identified by such a broad trawl.

UHB ordered a separate review of the 26 cases where specific concerns about misdiagnosis had been raised. It said it had now established that most of the cases had not involved errors. In two cases, agreement had been reached with the individual patients, UHB said. It would not say whether any financial settlement had been made.

It said just one case, involving a patient from North Bristol NHS Trust (NBT), known to be Mrs Hopes, remained unresolved.

Concerns about the pathology service at UHB were repeatedly discussed by medics at NBT. Minutes from NBT's medical advisory committee meeting of July 2008 state: "There continued to be serious cases of misdiagnosis by UHB histopathologists of specimens from NBT patients, despite there having been assurances by UHB that the problems had been overcome."

Daphne Havercroft, an advocate for cancer patients in Bristol, said she was concerned that patients were being left at risk by the failure to listen to doctors' concerns. She said: "These concerns are really serious and they have been being raised for a long time. Clinicians have tried but they are still afraid to blow the whistle."

A spokesman for UHB said the organisation was committed to allowing the inquiry to conduct a robust review of the service, and believed that its findings would reassure patients. He said the audit had been designed to ensure statistically-significant results. [Really??? An audit with predetermined conclusions????]

SOURCE



British city's cry for help: Devastating toll of immigration on schools, housing and hospitals

The impact of uncontrolled mass immigration on the fabric of British life was driven home to the party leaders yesterday. A letter to Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg reveals in graphic detail the struggle of one community to cope.

It says public services - from schooling to housing, healthcare to police protection - are overstretched because councils have not been given the support they need.

The letter, from two independent councillors in the Cambridgeshire city of Peterborough, spells out in a straightforward and measured way how a community which 'lived in peace and harmony' has been transformed.

Local schools are struggling to educate children who speak 27 different languages and health services are under unprecedented pressure. The councillors, Charles Swift and Keith Sharp, contrast the situation with that of a few years ago. Then, they say, 'there was parental choice in education with school places. There was no homelessness. There were no problems with registering at the local doctors for health services. 'Everyone knew the local police officer and they were available at all times. People could walk the streets in safety and talk to their neighbours.'

The two men asked the party leaders for a reply, warning that the problem is a national one. But in another example of the way immigration issues have been brushed under the carpet, they have heard nothing.

The letter has been sent to Mr Brown and Mr Clegg three times since January 18, without any reply. David Cameron responded with an email from his correspondence secretary promising a reply from immigration spokesman Damian Green. Mr Swift and Mr Sharp are still waiting.

The two councillors represent North ward in Peterborough where 15 per cent of people are migrants, mainly from former Communist countries in Eastern Europe which are now EU members. Their letter - which they also sent to constituents - was passed to the Daily Mail by a local resident concerned that its urgent message was being ignored.

The councillors say: 'At our local primary school, Fulbridge, which has a roll of 675 pupils, 27 different languages are spoken with only 200 of the pupils having English as a first language. 'The first-year reception class has 90 pupils, of which only 17 are white British. Every day new arrivals are turned away.

'Registration at the local doctors' surgery has rocketed with more than 90 per cent of the new arrivals being from the EU. There has been a substantial increase in women who are pregnant. 'The Health Service and Primary Care Trust in the city has overspent by millions in the past year.'

A key issue is the Government's failure to support councils. But Mr Swift and Mr Sharp make clear that the local authority cannot track all new arrivals - crucial information in assessing what they need. They say there were only four EU citizens on the local electoral roll in 2004. Now there are 537 and 'we know there are substantially more here'.

The councillors also voiced the local fears that immigration is fuelling a rise in crime. They write: 'We had four police houses in the ward years ago. Everyone knew and respected the local constable. Now we have muggings, robberies, burglaries and neighbour disputes. We have prostitutes, drug dealers and an ever-increasing number of people who drive without road tax or insurance.'

Some 16,000 migrants, many seeking farm work, have moved to the Peterborough area since 2004. Immigrant communities account for 64 per cent of the population growth.

Details of the letter emerged a day after the Daily Mail revealed shocking figures showing that nearly every job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker. Some 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts went to immigrants.

In their letter, Mr Swift and Mr Sharp say the arrival of so many migrants has left Peterborough's housing system in chaos, with immigrants sleeping rough and relying on the Salvation Army for food.

They say many properties have been bought by speculators and turned into multioccupancy dwellings let to immigrants. 'The consequence is that our housing waiting lists have rocketed and our homeless hostels are full.' This reinforces reports of migrants living in makeshift huts along the local river and slaughtering swans to eat.

The councillors' concerns were echoed last night in a Harris poll for the Daily Mail, which reveals that seven out of ten voters are 'very worried' about the scale of immigration and believe it is a 'significant cause of unrest'. Some 63 per cent think the influx of two million immigrants under Labour has been a 'bad thing' and three out of four want a tough limit on new arrivals.

Mr Swift, 79, a former train driver and trade unionist who was awarded the OBE for his council services, said last night: 'The political leaders must listen to ordinary people. 'There must be a control on migrant numbers coming in. It is what people want. They feel the situation has got out of hand. I have spoken to rocksolid Labour supporters, rocksolid Conservative supporters. They don't know how to vote.'

Sir Andrew Green, head of the Migrationwatch campaign group, called the letter 'a vivid and convincing account of the impact of immigration'. He added: 'It is shameful that these councillors should have received no substantive reply'.

Last night a Tory spokesman said a reply from Mr Green is due to be sent before MPs' offices close on Monday.

A spokesman for Mr Brown said: 'We are not currently aware of this correspondence but of course Gordon will answer any questions that are asked of him.'

Nick Clegg's spokesman said: 'We are very sorry these councillors have not received a reply. They will be getting one as soon as possible.'

SOURCE



1930s books revived in the hope of teaching pupils traditional British history

Not much hope of government schools using them

History books first published in the 1930s have been revived in a bid to tackle schoolchildren's ignorance of Britain's past. Acccording to the publishers, the 1930s books are needed to address a 'crisis' in the teaching of the traditional narrative of British history

The series, called A History of Britain, was first published in 1937 and was widely used in schools for decades. It has now been updated and relaunched for a modern audience amid growing concerns that schools are failing to give children a good grasp of history.

It comes as a group of leading history experts called for reform to the school curriculum so secondary schoolchildren are taught a single chronological history course, stretching from the Norman conquest to the 20th century.

Currently, pupils study topics such as the Nazis, Soviet Russia, slavery or the Victorians, often taught in isolation and repeated in different years.

According to the publishers, the 1930s books are needed to address a "crisis" in the teaching of the traditional narrative of British history. "For more than half a century most intelligent youngsters in Britain have grown up to live in the half-darkness of historical ignorance," said Tom Stacey, chairman of Stacey International.

"I have seen this ignorance creeping up on three generations. I count their loss as incalculable deprivation. There has been a parallel discarding of the fabric of biblical history and the Christian narrative."

He said that traditional history had "all but vanished" in schools, replaced by a diet of "projects on slavery, Victorian slums, the labour movement or, again and again, the Second World War".

The 1930s series was written by E H Carter, who was chief inspector of schools, and R A F Mears, a history teacher. Subsequent volumes covered British history up to the 1950s. The updated books are edited by David Evans, an historian and former head of history at Eton College. The first two books to be re-released cover the Tudors and the Stuarts. Eight more will follow, beginning with the Roman invasion.

The last two books, From Churchill to Thatcher; 1951 – 1990, and Into the 21st Century, are new but will be in the same style as the original series.

Concerns that schools are failing to instil a good understanding of the timeline of British history have been raised by a long list of commentators, including academics David Starkey and Niall Ferguson, Andrew Marr, the BBC presenter and author of A History of Modern Britain, and the Prince of Wales.

"There can be no justification for the excessive focus on the history of the Third Reich," said Professor Ferguson, "What we urgently need is a campaign for real history in schools."

A group of experts, lead by Sean Lang, a senior lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University, have just published a report, Better History, calling for a single chronological history course for 11 to 16 year olds. It should be compulsory and have historical knowledge at its heart, the group say.

Mr Lang said: "The current situation whereby students study one set of topics in the early years of secondary school and then embark on a quite separate set of topics in later years has gone unquestioned for too long. "The building up of an extensive body of historical knowledge should be a central aim of the history curriculum."

Fears about current history teaching are backed by a damning Ofsted report which found that although the National Curriculum demands that children develop a "chronological framework", in practice pupils' knowledge was "often very patchy and specific" and that children were "unable to sufficiently link discrete historical events to answer big questions".

The Conservatives have pledged to give children a "clear sense of how British history developed", if the party wins the general election, and the Anglia Ruskin group hopes to influence a Tory rewrite of the National Curriculum.

The group, which includes Martin Roberts, a member of the academic steering committee of Prince Charles's Teaching Institute, and Nicolas Kinlock, a former school head of history, author and former deputy of the Historical Association, will hold a seminar in the summer to sort out details of the new proposed course of study.

Alan Hodkinson, principal lecturer in educational research at Liverpool John Moores University, whose three year study showed that even young children can grasp chronology, said: "Historical time is vital to the study of history. "Without a comprehensive grasp of such, children will fail to understand how to sequence events, periods and people chronologically.

"My research suggests that rather than being de-emphasised, dates appear vital to historical study and should be employed consistently. "It is time that the people responsible for the curriculum stopped underestimating what our children are capable of."

A report published last year by the Historical Association found that thousands of pupils get only two years of teaching in the subject at secondary level, instead of three.

Official figures show that fewer than a third of students sat GCSE history in 2008, raising concerns that the subject is becoming the preserve of independent and grammar schools.

SOURCE



NHS relaxes safety rules for Muslim staff... just days after Christian nurse is banned from wearing crucifix for "safety" reasons

This is blatant hypocritical defiance

Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed for religious reasons to opt out of strict NHS dress codes introduced to prevent the spread of deadly hospital superbugs. The Department of Health has announced that female Muslim staff will be permitted to cover their arms on hospital wards to preserve their modesty.

This is despite earlier guidance that all staff should be ‘bare below the elbow’ after long sleeves were blamed for spreading bacteria, leading to superbug deaths.

The Department has also relaxed its ‘no jewellery’ rule by making it clear that Sikhs can wear bangles, as long as they can be pushed up the arm during direct patient care.

The move contrasts with the case of nurse Shirley Chaplin, who last week lost her discrimination battle against Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Trust, which said the cross she has worn since she was 16 was a ‘hazard’ because it could scratch patients.

Mrs Chaplin, 55, had worn the silver cross on a necklace since her confirmation. But the employment tribunal told her that wearing a cross was not a ‘mandatory requirement’ of her faith, even though Muslim doctors are allowed to wear hijabs or headscarves.

Last night she said of the sleeve concession to Muslims: ‘I don’t believe my cross is a danger so this is double standards. What can you say? It seems that life is stacked up against Christians these days.’

Politicians and Christian leaders, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, added that it showed the Government was prepared to accommodate minority faiths while Christianity was marginalised.

Lord Carey said of grandmother Mrs Chaplin: ‘The Muslim voice is very strong, so politicians and others are scared of it. We can only deduce that the hostility aimed at her is because she is a Christian.’

The revised rules, which health officials insist will not compromise hospital hygiene, were drawn up after female Muslim staff objected to exposing their arms in public.

Since the original guidance was announced by the then Health Secretary Alan Johnson in 2007, many hospitals have insisted that staff involved in patient care wear short sleeves at all times. Mr Johnson’s initiative came amid growing concerns about the number of patients catching superbugs such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile. Hundreds of people have died.

The guidance required staff coming into contact with patients to have their arms bare below the elbows, outlawing the traditional doctors’ white coat.

Jewellery, other than plain wedding bands and ear studs, watches and false nails, were also banned to cut down the spread of bacteria. But Muslim doctors and medical students said baring arms conflicted with the Koran’s teaching that women must dress modestly in public.

In 2008, several universities reported that Muslim medical students objected to the rules. Leicester University said some Muslim females ‘had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate handwashing’, while Sheffield University reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to ‘scrub’ as this left her forearms exposed.

Birmingham University revealed that some students would prefer to quit their course than expose their arms. A Muslim radiographer quit at Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading over the issue. Yet Islamic experts are divided about how Muslim women should dress as the Koran is ambiguous on the matter.

The revised rules, issued on March 26, make clear that staff can wear uniforms with long sleeves as long as they roll them up securely above their elbows to wash and when they are on the wards. They add that staff who want to cover up completely when dealing with patients will be able to use special disposable ‘over-sleeves’.

The guidance says: ‘Where, for religious reasons, members of staff wish to cover their forearms or wear a bracelet when not engaged in patient care, ensure that sleeves or bracelets can be pushed up the arm and secured in place for hand-washing and direct patient care.

‘In a few instances, staff have expressed a preference for disposable over-sleeves – elasticated at the wrist and elbow – to cover forearms during patient care activity. ‘Disposable over-sleeves can be worn where gloves are used but strict adherence to washing hands and wrists must be observed before and after use.’

The Department was unable to say last night how much extra it will cost the NHS to provide the disposable sleeves. But 18in polythene over-sleeves are already on offer on the internet for about £7 for a pack of 200.

The Department admitted in its new guidance that it had reviewed its rules because ‘exposure of the forearms is not acceptable to some staff because of their Islamic faith’. It added: ‘We recognise that elements of the additional guidance could be seen to be introducing differing requirements for those to whom “baring below the elbows” presents no significant problem.

‘We have considered the implications of this possibility but concluded that the overall purpose of the guidance, to ensure patient safety by adherence to good hand hygiene, is not prejudiced by the additional dress options that have now been identified.’

Health officials drew up the revised rules on the advice of Islamic scholars and a group called Muslim Spiritual Care Provision in the NHS (MSCP), which is part of the Muslim Council of Britain.

A working party was set up comprising two Health Department officials, a member of the Health Protection Agency, two female Muslim hospital chaplains, an Imam and two members of MSCP. Yet campaigners for the rights of Christian nurses to wear crosses said the Health Department had failed to consult them adequately.

Mrs Chaplin lost her case on Tuesday despite being backed by the Christian Legal Centre and human-rights lawyer Paul Diamond. She is not the only nurse to fall foul of health-and-safety laws. Last year, Roman Catholic Helen Slatter, 43, resigned as a blood collector at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital rather than remove her cross which her bosses said ‘could harbour infection’.

Lord Carey, one of seven bishops to sign a letter supporting Mrs Chaplin at her tribunal, said the Government was guilty of ‘double standards’. ‘The NHS, British Airways and all the big companies seem to be tilting in one direction,’ he added. ‘If Muslims are getting these concessions, why not Christians? There should be the same rules for everyone.’

Lord Carey, whose wife Eileen is a former nurse, added: ‘In the case of Shirley Chaplin, she has been wearing her cross for 38 years and it has never injured anyone. ‘So the argument for health and safety is very weak, very tenuous indeed.’

Derek Butler, chairman of MRSA Action UK, a campaign group headed by respected microbiologist Professor Hugh Pennington, said: ‘We welcomed the introduction of baring-below-the-elbows because we know that anything – whether it’s jewellery, watches or wedding rings – can harbour bacteria which can in turn transfer superbugs between patients.

‘My worry is that by allowing some medics to use disposable sleeves you compromise patient safety because unless you change the sleeves between treating each patient, you spread bacteria. Scrubbing bare arms is far more effective. ‘I’ve seen doctors and nurses fail to change their gloves, and I’ve no doubt this will see exactly the same thing happening. These sleeves are just another risk, and you cannot take risks with patient safety.’

Former Tory Minister Ann Widdecombe said: ‘I don’t mind if a Sikh nurse can wear a bangle if a Christian nurse can wear a cross. If you have a rule you have to have it for all. ‘There is no evidence that crosses are a serious health-and-safety risk. That is just an excuse to discriminate against people of faith. ‘Minority groups are unquestionably getting more sensitive treatment than Christians and this is yet more proof.’

Dr Andrew Fergusson, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, which represents 4,000 doctors, said: ‘For some reason, Christians in health care seem to be particularly vulnerable at the moment.’

The Department of Health said: ‘The revised workwear guidance gives further clarity to frontline staff about the need to have good hand hygiene when in direct patient care. It does not change previous policy. ‘The guidance is intended to provide direction to services in how they can balance infection-control measures with cultural beliefs without compromising patient safety.

SOURCE



Religious tolerance has put a fatwa on our moral nerve

Religious freedom has turned out to be a mixed blessing. The idea was once an article of faith with me, irreligious though I am. But my faith is beginning to weaken. Religion has turned out to be different from what tolerant people of my monocultural childhood understood by it — a system of private belief and devotion that did not intrude into the public space except through charity and uncontroversial good works.

Now, by contrast, religion is constantly claiming attention in the public space and demanding special treatment. It is also abused in the name of divisive identity politics. All this makes even the most tolerant liberal think twice about freedom of religious expression.

Last week’s case of the self-styled “crucified” nurse is a perfect example of the problem. Shirley Chaplin, an experienced ward sister and devout Christian, discovered at an employment tribunal that — despite the support of seven bishops and a mention in the Easter sermon of the Archbishop of Canterbury — she had lost her battle to be allowed to wear a crucifix at work in the wards of the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. Her crucifix is on a long chain and although she has worn it at work for many years, a recent hospital risk assessment found that it breached health and safety rules. This decision was upheld by the employment tribunal.

“I don’t use the word crucified lightly,” said Chaplin, “but in one sense I have been crucified by the system. Every Christian at work will now be afraid to mention their beliefs.” What on earth can she mean? The reverse is the truth. The hospital suggested to her as a compromise that she might indeed wear her crucifix openly at work, but pinned to her uniform rather than on a chain — rather as nurses wear watches pinned to their frontage for reasons of hygiene — thus publicly displaying her beliefs at all times.

One can, however, sympathise with something else she feels. Commenting that Muslim hospital staff have been allowed to continue wearing head coverings, she said that “Muslims do not seem to face the same rigorous application of NHS rules”. There’s certainly some truth in that.

At the end of March it emerged that female Muslim doctors and nurses are indeed to have special treatment on National Health Service wards. Non-Muslim staff in direct contact with patients must keep their arms bare to the elbow for important hygiene reasons — to make sure their sleeves do not become contaminated and so they can wash their hands thoroughly on ward rounds.

Their Muslim female counterparts, however, have been given a special dispensation by the Department of Health. Because some Muslims consider nudity of the female forearm to be immodest, Muslim doctors and nurses are to be issued with disposable sleeves, elasticated at wrist and elbow, to cover up the erogenous zone that lies between. This is absurd, unfair, wasteful and yet another example, as Chaplin and her episcopal supporters (and I) all feel, of the bias in favour of a vociferous religious minority.

The truth is that special dispensations for such reasons are not acceptable. Everyone ought to abide by the same rules. Disposable hospital sleeves for Muslims, full veils, long dresses in public pools and ceremonial knives at school are not acceptable in the public domain. They may be unhygienic; they may be dangerous; they may be a security risk. Yet the main argument for prohibiting all these supposedly religious symbols is that they are socially divisive and disruptive without being a religious requirement at all. I applaud the decision of the General Medical Council in 2008 that Muslim doctors must not veil their faces when with patients.

To me, one of the most heartening aspects of the case of Chaplin’s dangling crucifix was the tribunal’s finding that there is no mandatory requirement in the Christian faith that a Christian should wear a crucifix. That is correct, of course. Wearing a crucifix is entirely optional and indeed historically some Christians have actually disapproved of them as graven images.

This same criterion could and should be applied to comparable claims for special treatment on religious grounds, such as the wearing of supposedly Muslim clothing. Saying this will bring protests down upon my head, but, as far as I can understand, there is no mandatory Islamic requirement for women to wear a particular kind of garment; there is merely a requirement for them to dress modestly. If it weren’t for the spirit of tolerance in this country, combined with politically correct cowardice, officialdom would have acted accordingly long ago.

Beyond all this, the awkward fact remains that there is nothing to stop anyone insisting that a certain practice — whether it is circumcising little girls or teaching creationist nonsense or turning homosexuals away from B&Bs — is indeed a requirement of his or her religion, no matter what any theologian may say.

It is useless to argue: the problem is with religion itself. Religion is a word that can be used to silence argument, not least because religious faith is by definition beyond the reach of rational argument. Yet somehow in this country we have encoded that irrationality into law — into recent human rights law and anti-discrimination legislation — with the result that we are all defenceless in the face of antisocial demands made in the name of religion.

We have put ourselves in a position in which we cannot discriminate between religions and between religious practices; even joking may be against the law now. Not taking religion very seriously ourselves, we failed until recently to understand that others do and do not consider it a private matter. At the same time, we seem to be in a state of cultural moral funk, in which even the Archbishop of Canterbury could recommend that aspects of sharia should be incorporated into English law and then wonder at the fury he aroused.

Beyond a certain point in a liberal society, religious tolerance is a loss of moral nerve.

SOURCE



Shocker: Massive aid does not mean improvement

Even the Left-leaning "Lancet" says so

Do massive donations of cash as aid to poor nations allow them to focus on structural improvements and increased spending on health? Or does that money allow corrupt governments to divert resources that they would have spent on those issues to other priorities? A new study by Lancet strongly suggests the latter — even when the donors believe they have secured the distribution of the funds:

After getting millions of dollars to fight AIDS, some African countries responded by slashing their health budgets, new research says.

For years, the international community has forked over billions in health aid, believing the donations supplemented health budgets in poor countries. It now turns out development money prompted some governments to spend on entirely different things, which cannot be tracked. The research was published Friday in the medical journal Lancet. …

The research raises questions about whether international aid is sometimes detrimental. Previous studies have found pricey United Nations health initiatives haven’t paid off and occasionally hurt health systems. Experts estimate about half of international health aid can’t be traced in the budgets of receiving countries.

Murray’s paper also found debt relief had no effect on health spending. Activists like Bob Geldof and Bono have long argued canceling African debts would allow countries to spend more on their health problems, but there was no evidence of that.

“When an aid official thinks he is helping a low-income African patient avoid charges at a health clinic, in reality, he is paying for a shopping trip to Paris for a government minister and his wife,” said Philip Stevens, of the London-based think tank International Policy Network. He was not linked to the study.

What can we learn from this study that we really should have already known?

1. Money is fungible – Giving block grants to a state for one purpose doesn’t mean that the purpose gets more money. It allows the state to divert its already-committed resources to other purposes. We’ve learned that here in the US with Porkulus block grants to states. Without accountability, that money can go anywhere and either directly or indirectly feed the corruption at the heart of Africa’s problems.

2. Corruption is the root cause of nationwide poverty – We have sent monetary aid to Africa for decades in attempts to fix the problems of poverty and disease. That should tell us that money isn’t really the root problem in these countries. The governments, mostly corrupt dictatorships, create the problems through outright theft or the imposition of incompetent central economic planning. In Zimbabwe, for just one example, it’s both. That nation’s land used to provide for much of Africa’s food, and now it can’t even feed itself.

3. We need to change direction in Africa – None of us want to see an entire continent fail, but we apparently have two choices. Either we drop billions on Africa every year in aid that extends the status quo, or we cut off the aid and force African nations to change from within. The US had moved toward the latter in the last few years, but guilt-trip initiatives (however well meaning) keep putting political pressure on nations to maintain the status quo.

If we really want to solve the problem of poverty and illness in Africa, we need to demand political reform. Everything else is a band-aid, and not the kind of Band Aid that means aging rockers taking to the stage on G-20 conferences.

SOURCE



UK comedian Frankie Boyle slammed over Down syndrome rant

I have always seen it as cruel and in exceptionally poor taste to make fun of the disabled -- as being in fact a mark of a deficient sense of humor. I would have to hear the whole segment below, however, to decide whether the comedian really was making fun of the disabled. He does seem to have been generally offensive. Such behavior does a great disservice to comedy generally.

"One of the UK's most popular comedians Frankie Boyle has been rebuked by the mother of a Down syndrome child for making fun of the condition on his latest tour of England.

Sharon Smith, whose five-year-old daughter Tanzie has the condition, became upset as the Scottish comic made jokes lampooning Down syndrome, Sky News reports.

Star of current affairs comedy show Mock The Week, Boyle poked fun at Down syndrome haircuts, labeled those with the condition as "Mongoloids" and said they were destined for an early death.

He then spotted Ms Smith squirming in the front row at the Hexagon Theatre in Reading, southern England, and told her off for talking during his set. Ms Smith, 37, replied that she had personal experience with Down syndrome and was upset by his comments.

Recounting the incident on her personal blog, she said, "He tried to laugh it off: 'Ah, but it's all true isn't it? Everything I have said is true isn't it?' to which I replied 'No, it wasn't'. "He then went on to say that it was the most excruciating moment of his career but then tried to claw the humour back by saying we had paid to come and see him and what should we expect.

"To which I replied that I understood that and that it was my personal problem. He then said it was the last tour ever and that he didn't give a f--k."

Source

One hopes that it was indeed his last tour ever





10 April, 2010

NHS hospital admits failures over toddlers' deaths

Health chiefs yesterday apologised for failures in diagnosing two toddlers with blooding poisoning who died within weeks of each other at the same hospital.

An investigation was launched after Rhianna Warner, two, and 11-month-old Ellie Parsons died at Ipswich Hospital after developing symptoms of the deadly disease.

Yesterday hospital chiefs met the children’s parents to apologise, admitting that staff had failed to spot telltale signs of meningococcal septicaemia.

They said that while it could not be proved that earlier diagnosis would have saved their lives, staff had breached national guidelines in the way they treated the pair.

Peter Donaldson, medical director of Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust, said: "In both cases, there was a failure by staff at this hospital to pay sufficient attention to specific observations that could have given rise to a greater degree of suspicion that the children might be suffering from a more life-threatening infection.

"These were not the failings of individuals within the hospital so much as a failure of the hospital to ensure that the appropriate guidance for assessing children presenting with a fever was fully understood and followed.

"The onset of this form of septicaemia is often rapid after a mild start and it is often fatal whatever treatment is given. We offer our sincere condolences to the families."

The two children, both from Ipswich, Suffolk, died within weeks of each other, triggering fears of an outbreak of meningitis in the area. Ellie died on December 14 last year, within 10 hours of developing symptoms. On New Year’s Eve, Rhianna died suddenly after she was taken to hospital suffering from the condition.

It was found they both died from meningococcal septicaemia – a type of blood poisoning that is caused by the same type of bacteria that cause the most common form of bacterial meningitis.

SOURCE



Immigration to Britain: What NONE of the major parties will tell you in the election campaign now underway

Politicians of all parties have lamentably failed to tell the truth about how immigration has changed this country beyond recognition during Labour's 13 years in power. But this is what is really happening...

NET MIGRATION

Net inward migration to the UK, the difference between the number of people arriving and leaving, is up threefold since Labour came to power.

In 1997, it stood at 48,000. By 2004, fuelled by a surge in new arrivals from Eastern Europe, it reached an all-time record 244,000, and in 2007 it was 237,000. The following year it did begin to fall, as Britain headed into a deep recession, but the total still stood at 163,000.

Mr Brown suggested the as-yet-unpublished figure for 2009 would be 147,000. But this was incomplete data which excluded asylum seekers, visitors who decide to stay long-term and arrivals from Ireland and earned the Premier earned a swift rebuke from Sir Michael Scholar, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority.

The Tories have pledged to reduce the level of net migration to 'tens of thousands' - but have yet to specify a number.

POPULATION GROWTH

The Office for National Statistics projects that - based on current levels of migration - the UK's population of 61million, will grow to 70million by 2029. The figure has become a battleground between the Government and those pushing for stricter immigration controls.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson initially said he did not 'lie awake' worrying about such rapid growth. He is now insisting the ONS figure is only a projection and that the statisticians have been wrong in the past.

The number of immigrants living in Britain has almost doubled in less than three decades. The total foreign-born population now stands at 6.7million.

JOBS

Mr Brown's now notorious 'British jobs for British workers' pledge is fatally undermined by employment figures from the ONS. These show that, in the private sector, there were 288,000 fewer UK-born people working in the third quarter of last year than there were in 1997.

Mr Brown likes to include people working beyond pension age as 'new jobs' - but if you strip them out, there are 637,000 fewer. Overall, immigration has accounted for more than 1.64million of the 1.67million jobs created since 1997.

THE BLACK ECONOMY

For much of the last decade, Britain has been a magnet for illegal immigration and it has never been possible to put a definitive figure on the numbers entering this way. Migrants mass at the Sangatte refugee camp near Calais, then smuggle themselves into the UK, often hidden in lorries.

The stowaways vanish into a black economy estimated to be worth billions of pounds. Commonly, illegal immigrants work in kitchens, agricultural and construction jobs. Immigration staff, struggling to cope with a backlog of asylum claims, do not have the resources to track them down.

During the 2005 election campaign, Tony Blair repeatedly refused to estimate how many illegals were living here. A month after being re-elected, his Government produced an estimate of 570,000. The campaign group Migrationwatch says the true total could be as high as 870,000.

Some Labour ministers have flirted with calling an 'amnesty' but it has been rejected as electorally unpopular.

EASTERN EUROPE

Officials estimated that, following EU enlargement in May 2004, between 5,000 and 13,000 Eastern Europeans would move to Britain. But by the end of 2009 the number who had signed the Home office's Worker Registration scheme alone was 1,041,315.

This does not include the self-employed or those who did not bother to sign. The unexpected influx - mainly from Poland - placed significant strain on schools, the health service and local councils, who have still not been properly funded for the new arrivals.

CITIZENSHIP

Handing out passports to foreign nationals is how the Labour Government changed the make-up of society for ever. In 1997 just 37,010 people were given citizenship. Last year the Home Office approved an all-time record 203,865 applications, an increase of 58 per cent in a year. In total, Labour has now created 1.5million new British citizens - all with full voting rights.

Ministers have repeatedly promised to toughen citizenship rules, most recently by insisting migrants must earn a passport by doing voluntary work.

ASYLUM REMOVALS

Labour has never recovered from the mayhem which occurred at the start of this century, when a record number of asylum seekers poured into the UK. Even on conservative estimates, it has left around 285,000 failed claimants living in Britain - but the number being removed is falling.

In 2009, there were 10,815 removals or voluntary departures, down 16 per cent on 2008. Of those who went, 2,985 benefited from the Assisted Voluntary Return scheme - worth £3,000 each.

The Government's target of concluding 90 per cent of asylum cases within six months by December 2011 has been dismissed as 'unachievable' by Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine.

Only a third of failed asylum seekers - 7,850 out of the 26,832 served with deportation notices - were actually removed in 2008. Inspectors have recently identified a new backlog of 40,000 cases massing in the asylum system.

STUDENT VISAS

In 1998, the number of visas handed out to overseas students was 69,607. In 2008/9, this figure had risen to 236,470. The Government's own figures suggest more than one in ten of the foreign students studying in this country last year was sponsored by a bogus college. At least 1.5million student visas have been handed out in the past eight years alone.

The beneficiaries included Christmas Day transatlantic flight bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab - given permission by the Home Office to study mechanical engineering at University College London between 2005 and 2008. A string of other terror suspects have used the student visa route into the UK.

PRISONS

Britain's jails have been turned into what the Tories have called a 'United Nations of crime' containing inmates from 160 different countries. The 11,546 foreign nationals represent one in every seven inmates in our prisons. They range from murderers and rapists to burglars, paedophiles, drug dealers and thieves.

There are only 192 member countries of the United Nations, so all bar 32 are represented in the British prison system. The vast number of overseas inmates is a major factor behind the overcrowding which has led to the early release of UK criminals.

THE SECRET PLAN

Arguably, the most damaging charge of them all. New Labour's election manifestos made little or no mention of immigration policy.

But according to a draft report by the Cabinet Office, written in 2000, ministers had a secret plan to 'maximise the contribution' of migrants to the Government's 'social objectives'.

Former Labour advisor Andrew Neather, who worked on the report, said the aim was to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.'

Source



Evil British prosecutors back off

They'd prefer you to be dead rather than defend yourself

A man accused of stabbing a teenage burglar to death after catching him ransacking his mother's home is to escape prosecution. Omari Roberts disturbed Tyler Juett, 17, and his accomplice after the pair smashed windows and a door to gain entry to the property.

The apprentice builder allegedly chased off the younger of the two after the 14-year-old threatened him with a kitchen knife. During an alleged struggle with Juett the burglar was stabbed in the shoulder, severing an artery which proved fatal.

Police charged Mr Roberts, 23, with murder after the incident in the Basford area of Nottingham in March last year. At the time Crown Prosecution Service lawyers said he had used 'excessive and gratuitous force'.

But yesterday his solicitor said prosecutors would officially drop the charges next week as they cannot offer any evidence. The u-turn comes after it emerged in an earlier court hearing that Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer [a hard Leftist and a resolute enemy of self-defence] had been involved in the original decision to prosecute Mr Roberts.

Yesterday his solicitor Jonathan Epelle said: 'We are delighted for Omari that he does not have to go through a trial. 'We are also angry as it was seven months before he was charged and then seven months after that we hear they will drop it. Omari's life has been turned upside down for a year.'

He added: 'Omari came home to find two people in the house. The windows were smashed and the back door was smashed open. Juett was upstairs and another 14-year-old boy was downstairs. 'He came rushing towards Omari with a kitchen knife, there was a struggle and the boy managed to abscond out of the house after he was stabbed in the leg.

'Omari made to go after him but came straight back as there was still somebody in the house. That boy, that was Tyler Juett, came running down the stairs and rushed towards Omari. 'There was a struggle and in the struggle he got a knife through the shoulder. 'There was a lot of confusion and there is confusion even now but Omari is not hiding anything. He gave a full account to police.

'This is a young man with no history of violence whatsoever, coming back to his mother's house for lunch and finding two people who rushed at him. 'One of them has ended up dead but he was damned if he did, and dead if he didn't. 'If he didn't do what he did, we could well be dealing with a murder case against Tyler Juett.'

Mr Roberts' mother, Jacqueline McKenzie-Johnson, has run a campaign for the law to be changed to offer homeowners more protection if they use force to defend their property. The 47-year-old, who works for Nottingham City Council, said: 'Justice has been served but there are no winners.

'This was not a public place, this was my home and the CPS dealt with the situation as if it was a public environment. This was in the privacy of my own home, it was a violation of my own family.'

The case echoes that of farmer Tony Martin, who was jailed for life for murder in 2000 after shooting dead a teenage intruder at his dilapidated Norfolk home. His conviction was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and he was released in 2003.

In February Britain's most senior judge threw out an application to jail a father who stabbed a thug threatening his family with an axe. Kenneth Blight, 51, walked free from the Appeal Court after an application from the Attorney General to increase his original sentence was dismissed in a crucial victory for homeowners.

Baroness Scotland QC pursued the father-of-three after he was given a two-year suspended jail term for stabbing drug-crazed teenager Andrew Nelson in a bid to protect his partner and children. She argued the original sentence was 'unduly lenient'.

But Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said Mr Blight was a 'decent' and 'mild natured' man who had been 'goaded beyond endurance' and the decision to free him last October had been 'humane and justifiably merciful'.

The Home Secretary has pledged to review the law and the Tories have made a manifesto commitment that 'have-a-go heroes' should be protected from prosecution.

Yesterday a CPS spokesman said: 'We are refusing to comment until after the hearing on Tuesday. 'The DPP was involved in this decision as he is with all complex and sensitive cases.'

SOURCE



An Australian State makes a well-timed move -- enticing British students

Many bright British students are being denied university admission this year because of preferences given to students from poor backgrounds and from overseas. See here

And the climate and general environment in South Australia do undoubtedly leave Britain for dead. Australian academic standards are also high. Australian academics fare well in the number of papers that they get published in academic journals

The Government of South Australia will focus on the poor job prospects of graduates in Britain – combined with the gloomy weather – as part of a marketing drive to tempt students to universities Down Under.

It will take a roadshow around five cities in England in a bid to increase the number of students taking up degree courses at four universities in the state. This includes Adelaide, South Australia, Flinders and the soon-to-open Adelaide campus of University College London.

There are already more than 5,000 British students in Australia and the number of foreign students as a whole has soared five-fold in a decade.

It is thought that students could be tempted Down Under if existing tuition fees in Britain - up to £3,200-a-year - are significantly increased next year. An independent review is currently being carried out into fees and is widely expected to result in a dramatic hike.

Undergraduate fees in Australia vary but the majority of courses are priced at between £6,000 and £10,000 a year.

The latest move came just 24 hours it was revealed that more than a third of graduates claimed jobseekers' allowance [i.e. were unemployed] in the last year because of tough economic conditions.

Bill Muirhead, South Australia’s London-based agent general, said: “It’s survival of the fittest and with the state’s economic strength and amazing lifestyle we’re picking off the talent ourselves. “Adelaide is in a state of economic boom and to support that growth, we need to draw in the highest skill sets from across the world.

“Brits have a similar educational structure, but we have the added extras to make a degree a life changing opportunity; amazing weather, many more job opportunities and a quality of life you won’t get anywhere else in the world.”

A roadshow will target Birmingham, Bristol, London, Manchester and York next month. An advertising campaign will tell teenagers that South Australia boasts more than 300 days of sunshine a year and 3,148 miles of coastline.

Students will also be told that there is far more chance of finding employment after graduation amid claims the state “survived the global financial crisis better than the rest of Australia”. [And Australia as a whole did well, with much lower unemployment than either Britain or the USA]

SOURCE



One-off treatment 'could switch off rheumatoid arthritis'

This would be an enormous blessing if it works -- but it would almost certainly make the patients vulnerable to other diseases. Switching off immune responses is a fairly desperate measure

A new one-off treatment which could potentially “switch off” rheumatoid arthritis is to be tested by British scientists. Researchers believe that the therapy could offer hope to the almost 700,000 suffers of the condition in this country.

The crippling joint disease is triggered by attacks from the body’s own defences. Scientists hope that the drug will turn off this response by the immune system, placing the patient into remission for years and potentially forever. Trials are due to start next month and, if successful, the drug could be available to patients within a decade.

Prof John Isaacs, professor of clinical rheumatology at Newcastle, who will lead the study, which will initially involve 40 patients, said: "The theory is that treatments like this can switch off the disease. “There is the potential that this switch off could last forever.

"Perhaps this would only be in patients who we treat at the early stage of the disease. "However, the chance of this happening in patients who have had the disease for a while is not altogether absent.”

The drug, called otelixizumab, was previously used in much stronger doses to prevent transplant patients rejecting donor organs. The drug targets T-cells, white blood cells which control the body’s natural defences. These cells are thought to send signals to other cells in the body to attack the joints. If they can “switch off” these signals doctors can potentially halt the disease at its source.

Current treatments for rheumatoid arthritis can send patients into remission, but these they have to be administered on an ongoing basis.

During the trial patients will receive a one-off dose of otelixizumab, administered intravenously for between two and five hours a day over five consecutive days. However, if the treatment proves successful the researchers hope that they can transfer the drug into a form which can be easily injected by patients themselves.

Prof Alan Silman, medical director of Arthritis Research UK, who are part-funding the study, along with GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical giant, said: “Although the research is at a very early stage, the potential prize – a new and highly effective one-off treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – is very great.”

An estimated 680,000 patients across Britain suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. The condition is different from osteoarthritis, the ‘wear and tear’ form of the disease that typically effects older patients.

SOURCE



Forbidden political drawings in Britain

We read:

"Former skinhead Gordon Higinbotham is banned from showing his 15 neo-Nazi tattoos in public. In fact, to take his t-shirt off outside would be in breach of his anti-social behaviour order (asbo), because it could cause distress or incite racial hatred.

His tattoos include a vile foot-long image of Adolf Hitler, which dominates his back, and an intricate picture of the Ku Klux Klan, which runs across the length of his stomach.

Source

It seems to me that he would have a case to have his tatts classified as "art". And ANYTHING is allowable as "art"





9 April, 2010

NHS bureaucrats care for themselves, not the patients

For the first 40 years of its existence, doctors ran the NHS. Now the pendulum has swung too far the other way, to devastating effect, says Andrew Gilligan

There are very few good arguments against the National Health Service. It is probably the best way so far devised to balance the conflicting demands of cost-effectiveness and universal care. The quality of treatment may be lower than in, say, France, but the cost to the average consumer, and the government, is also less. The NHS still gives many of us a vaguely warm feeling of egalitarianism and benevolence that makes it politically untouchable.

Yet it is politics which may, in the end, prove the service's undoing, because political, rather than clinical, priorities are coming to the fore. More and more cases are emerging of the malign effect on patients of highly politicised management.

Dr Kim Holt was a consultant paediatrician at the Haringey child protection clinic which failed to protect Baby Peter. More than a year before, she and all three of her colleagues wrote to their managers warning of the "very high risk" of a disaster, because the clinic was understaffed and not operating safely.

Managers at Great Ormond Street hospital, which employed her, removed Dr Holt from her job and cut staffing levels further. By the time Baby Peter came to the clinic, all four of the consultants who signed the letter had been removed, driven out, or were off sick. He was seen by an inexperienced temporary locum who missed the fact that he had a broken back. Two days later, he was dead.

Dr Holt believes, almost certainly correctly, that if she or another experienced consultant had been there, Baby Peter would be alive. Despite an NHS inquiry finding that she has done nothing wrong, she has still not been allowed to return to her post.

Ramon Niekrash, a consultant urologist at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich, complained to his managers that the hospital's cost-cutting was endangering patient care. He was suspended for 10 weeks, and recently won damages at an employment tribunal. It found "a tension between the professional desire of the claimant to provide a good-quality urology service for the patients, and the requirements of management to reduce or limit costs and also comply with varying targets laid down by the Department of Health".

At Stafford hospital, the recent inquiry into the avoidable deaths of at least 400 patients ruled that "staff lived in an atmosphere of fear ... promoted by the managerial styles of some senior managers... An explanation of staff's reluctance to come forward with concerns was that they were scared." The inquiry found that Whitehall targets led to a culture of "bullying" and "lies".

In my encounters as a journalist with the management of the NHS, I have found a secrecy, paranoia and defensiveness which I seldom met in my previous incarnation as a defence correspondent. Great Ormond Street, that world-famous institution with the heart-warming smiley kid logo, has twice given me statements which were provably untrue and which it was forced to retract.

For the first 40 years of its existence, doctors ran the NHS. Maybe they had too much power: the service does need to be managed. But the pendulum has swung too far the other way. These days, doctors seem to be the last people in charge of patient care.

There are hopeful signs. A large petition, exclusively of NHS medical staff, has been raised in support of Kim Holt; the British Medical Association, which has been notably feeble on behalf of whistleblower doctors, is showing a tiny bit of backbone; and the General Medical Council has reminded doctors of their duty to fight for high standards of care.

Bureaucratic self-protection is not confined to state bodies. But the NHS is suffering from an especially virulent form of this particular disease.

SOURCE



NHS nurse 'gave bed-ridden patient mop and bucket and told him to clean up his own urine'

A nurse gave a bed-ridden patient a mop and bucket and told him to clean up his own urine, a hearing was told today. The 73-year-old man told the Nursing and Midwifery Council he was 'taken aback and shocked' at Isabel Michaels' request.

He said he at first he thought she was 'having a laugh' but when he saw the look on her face he realised she was serious.

Michaels, 39, was later suspended from St Barts Hospital in London after concerned colleagues reported the incident.

The NMC heard the man, known only as patient A, was suffering from incontinence after a reaction to the antibiotics he was given following heart surgery in April 2007. He was moved into an isolation room on a high-dependency unit as staff thought he had a stomach bug, and was only able to use a commode.

On the night of April 18, the patient said he tried to call out to a nurse as he was 'desperate' to go but when no-one came he urinated on the floor. He told the hearing: 'I needed to go. I pressed the buzzer and no-one came so in the end I started calling out for help. I was desperate.

'Then this nurse [Michaels] came. It was the first time I had seen her. 'She looked at the floor then she went out the room and came back with a mop and bucket and said, "Here you go, you can mop it up." 'I thought blimey. She's a funny one. 'At first I thought she was having a laugh. She'd had a rough night I reckon. 'Then I saw her face was serious. It was as though she thought I'd done it on purpose.

The man said stretched out from the bed to move the mop but was unable to get out of bed. 'I hadn't long had an operation. So she just took it off me and cleaned it up herself. I didn't see her again. 'Then the ward sister told me she had been reported by other staff.'

Asked how it made him feel, patient A replied: 'I was a bit taken aback and shocked. I'd never been treated that way. 'I couldn't believe I was hearing that sort of talk off a nurse because it's part of their job ain't it.'

During a 2007 investigation into the incident Michaels said she had been joking. She later tried to blame the patient by saying she thought he had done it deliberately.

The nurse, who attended the hearing and who was represented by a lawyer, admitted asking patient A to clean up his own urine, but denied her fitness to practise was impaired.

Michaels, of Stepney, East London, faces being struck off if the panel find her guilty of misconduct.

SOURCE



Another empty Leftist promise: British woman forced to sell her home to buy cancer drugs the Labour government pledged to fund

A dying mother last night became the human face of an election battle over the NHS. Nikki Phelps, 37, who has a rare glandular cancer, has been refused the only drug that could prolong her life. Despite pleas from her consultant, her local NHS trust says it will not meet the £100-a-day cost.

Labour ministers promised more than a year ago to give sufferers of rare cancers easier access to life-extending drugs. But the rationing body NICE has since refused to approve ten such drugs. Experts say the rulings cut short up to 20,000 lives.

Former teacher Mrs Phelps and her husband are now selling their £200,000 Kent home to give her a chance of precious extra years with her two-year-old twin boys.

Her plight has been highlighted by the Tories, who have already promised that no one in her situation will be denied a drug their specialist says they should have. A Tory government would set aside £200million to fund the pledge.

Health spokesman Andrew Lansley said last night: 'It is bitterly unfair that people who have paid taxes all their life are unable to get the treatment they need from the NHS.

'No one should be forced to sell their home or spend their life savings to pay for health care. The Conservatives are committed to sweeping away the mindless bureaucracy that Labour has forced on the NHS and instead focus on what really matters - putting the patient first.'

Last night Mrs Phelps pleaded with the NHS to fund the drug Sutent, which she says will let her see her twins grow up. She said: 'I can't understand what the NHS is doing - where is the logic in investing in my treatment and then pulling the plug on me like this?

'My consultant is an expert in the field, and he knows what's best for me. Yet someone else is making a decision about what drugs I can and cannot take.'

Mrs Phelps, whose sons were born through IVF, has been battling the cancer for ten years and has already spent her £6,000 life savings on Sutent.

Her husband Bill, 45, said: 'She started taking these drugs we are paying for more than six weeks ago, and we can both see there has been an improvement. 'Nikki will do anything to spend more time with her sons. She feels the PCT has told her the next thing for her is a box.' He added: 'Emotionally she's very strong. She has to be. There are two little boys who can't have their mum sobbing around them.'

Mr Phelps, from Luddesdown, near Gravesend, says he is also prepared to sell his business, a cattery, to help his wife. Mrs Phelps has a rare cancer called MEN1 (multiple endocrine neoplasis).

Her consultant at the world-renowned Hammersmith Hospital suggested Sutent, which has been proved to double the life expectancy of people with kidney cancer, telling her it could also work against MEN1.

But West Kent primary care trust refused - because NICE has not specifically approved the drug for her type of cancer...

Professor Karol Sikora, medical director of Cancer Partners UK, said: 'It's so sad that clinicians used to be trusted in cases like this where you would say there is a good chance of drugs working. The system needs changing so doctors are in charge once again.' ....

The tragic case of Nikki Phelps has highlighted Labour's betrayal of patients with rare forms of cancer. As many as 20,000 Britons may have had their lives cut short because of decisions taken by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the NHS's rationing body, a recent study found.

Despite promising cancer patients in late 2008 that they would get access to life-extending drugs, NICE has turned down no fewer than ten treatments because they are deemed 'too expensive'.

Critics say that those unlucky enough to suffer from the 'wrong' type of cancer - including types of kidney cancer and leukaemia - are being victimised....

SOURCE



A political test for British teachers?

It might be defensible if members of extreme Leftist groups were banned too -- and there are plenty of those among British teachers

Members of the British National Party should be banned from the classroom, a teaching union heard today. The BNP is already barred from working as prison officers and the same should be the case for teaching, it was claimed.

Activists from the National Union of Teachers said that membership of the BNP and far right organisations posed a threat to community relations. [And preaching class-hatred does not??]

The comments follow the publication of a Government review that said there was no justification for banning teachers from joining extremist organisations. Maurice Smith, the former chief inspector of schools, said banning BNP members from teaching would be using a "very large sledgehammer to crack a very small nut".

But addressing the NUT annual conference in Liverpool on Tuesday, some activists called for an all-out ban.

Jason Hill, a teacher from Stoke-on-Trent said: “In prisons, prison officers are not allowed to be members of the BNP, in schools there in no bar on teachers being members of the BNP, there is no bar on school governors, there is no bar on councillors involved in education.

He added: “What we are arguing for in this amendment is that we in the education service be brought into the same position as the prison service and that members of the BNP, that we argue to government, that members of the BNP should be barred from this position.”

Jean Roberts, a delegate from Hammersmith and Fulham in west London, said she was opposed to the views of the BNP, and insisted that any teacher who promoted racist views in the classroom should be barred from the profession.

But she added: “I don’t believe the NUT should call on the state to bar teachers from joining a presently legal political party. “They would rapidly move on to others who are more of a threat to them.

“To remove such a basic civil right, the right of association, something trade unionists find especially precious, is in my view a grossly disproportionate response, but more importantly it gives the BNP a credibility it does not deserve.”

A motion to the conference called for united action to oppose the BNP and other groups such as the English Defence League, while an amendment to the resolution demanded an all-out ban. The union failed to vote on either after running out of time.

Paul Golding, BNP communications officer said: “It’s a dangerous road to go down, once you start banning based on political beliefs where does it end? Isn’t that the sort of thing always lambasted by democratic politicians, banning people based on political beliefs?”

SOURCE



A new episode in Britain's immigration disaster

The Labour party's betrayal of British workers: Nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner -- and the huge influx of immigrants was deliberate Labour policy

Immigration was at the centre of the election campaign last night as it emerged that virtually every extra job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker. Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.

The Tories seized on the revelation as evidence that the Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.

As Gordon Brown tried to fight on the economy and cleaning up politics, he was confronted in the Commons about how British people of working age have lost out. Shadow immigration minister Damian Green revealed unpublished figures showing there are almost 730,000 fewer British-born workers in the private sector than in 1997.

Last night Mr Green said the Tories would reduce net migration to tens of thousands a year from the peaks of 200,000 under Labour by enforcing an annual cap.

Mr Brown rejected the idea of an immigration quota, which he said would do 'great damage to British business'.

But Mr Green said the official figures were 'the final proof that Gordon Brown was misleading the public when he promised British jobs for British workers'. He added: 'Instead he has presided over boom and bust and left British workers in a worse position than when he took office 13 years ago.

'British workers have been betrayed. A Conservative government would introduce a genuine limit which would help us properly control immigration. 'We would reduce net immigration to the levels of the 1980s and 90s - tens of thousands a year, not the hundreds of thousands we have seen under Labour.'

The ONS figures show the total number of people in work in both the private and the public sector has risen from around 25.7million in 1997 to 27.4million at the end of last year, an increase of 1.67million.

But the number of workers born abroad has increased dramatically by 1.64million, from 1.9million to 3.5million.

There were 23.8million British-born workers in employment at the end of last year, just 25,000 more than when Labour came to power. In the private sector, the number of British workers has actually fallen.

The number of posts for people of working age has increased since 1997 by over 500,000, to 20.5million. But the number of British-born workers in the private sector has slumped by 726,000, from 18.4million to 17.7million.

The figures exclude people working beyond pension age, which critics say the Government includes as 'new jobs' in its assessments.

Last year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that, over ten years, only Luxembourg had seen more of its new jobs taken by migrants.

The latest totals do not include the hundreds of thousands of migrants employed in the 'black economy'.

Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch pressure group, said: 'The government's economic case for mass immigration is finally blown out of the water.'

Much more HERE





Britian joins the internet censors: Digital Economy Bill could see Google blocked, Wikileaks shut down

Fortunately, the bill is unlikely to get through the House of Lords. They are very valuable as defenders of British liberties

ILLEGAL downloaders could soon be banned from using the internet for life after a controversial bill was passed in the UK's Lower House of Parliament.

Sky News reported the Digital Economy Bill aims to stop people from illegally downloading copyrighted material from the internet, but critics argue it could have far greater powers and be used to censor and block free speech by ruling politicians.

The bill was rushed through the legislature before the dissolution of Parliament next Monday, ahead of next month's national election.

It was passed by 189 votes to 47 after concessions were agreed that saw the government drop a clause that allowed it sweeping powers to block sites.

But the amendment to another clause means that it could still be possible to block a site, if court approval was given.

Lawmakers who opposed the bill said it was right to do something about illegal downloads but that the new powers were too far-reaching.

One suggested that a search engine even as huge as Google could potentially be blocked.

Technology blogs claimed that the law would be way off the mark.

Techcrunch's Mike Butcher said: "In trying to support the old music industry models and tackle illegal file-sharing, the #DEBill, as it's known on Twitter, is poised to produce a new culture.

"That of legal letters from music industry bodies to (Internet Service Providers), bewildered householders and, no doubt, a manner of internet companies."

He argued that valuable sites such as Wikileaks, which carries copyrighted work, could be shut down, blocking the release of information that it was in the public's interest to know.

And paidContent:UK said: "The bill may have had a few parts stripped out and it may even be a damp squib. But the remaining 76-page Bill is still a wide-ranging piece of media and technology reform."

The Labour Party's former digital engagement minister Tom Watson earlier warned of a "catastrophic disaster", with potentially innocent people being cut off because they lived in the same building as illegal downloaders.

"It might be that a Wi-Fi network is being used in a household. You might have a parent who pays for the broadband connection and their children are illegally downloading," he said.

"The assumption in the current wording is that that parent has authorised the child to infringe copyright."

SOURCE



The negligent British police again

A girl of four was saved by her coat after being savaged by a police dog in a park. And no repentance by the police, apparently

The German Shepherd, being exercised by an off-duty officer, chased Erika Carter De Freitas Galiano, bit her arm and dragged her to the ground. It was only her thick pink padded coat which saved her from serious injury from the dog’s powerful jaws.

She was taken to hospital with a two and a half inch long bruise on her right arm and is on antibiotics because the animal’s teeth pierced her skin. The incident has left Erika so frightened of dogs that she won’t now even be in the same room as the family’s puppy.

Erika’s mother Kerry Carter, 24, said: ‘We were walking home from a family meal and Erika started running through the park. ‘I saw a man with a dog, but didn’t think they were a threat. ‘I glanced away and then heard a scream, I looked back and Erika was on the floor screaming. ‘The man said something to the dog then went over to Erika and was hugging her as she was curled up on the ground.

‘I was so shocked. I asked him why he had the dog off the lead and he said: “I’m a police officer, this is a police dog”.

‘You never expect a person in a position of responsibility to have a dangerous dog off a lead in a children’s park like that. ‘This is what this dog was brought up and trained to do. He said he thought there was no one there and it was the evening, so it would be safe. ‘But it was 7pm on Easter Sunday, of course people are going to be around. ‘He was very apologetic, but the damage had already been done.

‘If this was a normal person’s dog it would have been put down, but all the police have done is take the dog out of active duty.’

David Mills, 55, who witnessed the attack, said: ‘The dog flew straight towards the little girl, bit her arm and dragged her to the ground. She was screaming.’

Miss Carter added: ‘It is an awful thing for my daughter to go through and has had a terrible effect on her. ‘She won’t be in the same room as our puppy, Tia, and is scared of dogs. It is very distressing and has been a horrible ordeal.

‘This dog has been trained to attack, it just happened to be a child running past, not a criminal. If I had known it was a police dog I would never have let my daughter go into the park. ‘I think the law should be changed so off-duty dogs have to be marked by wearing a vest or something.’

Essex Police’s professional standards department is investigating the attack. A spokesman for the force said the German Shepherd would remain off duty during the inquiry. He added: ‘It is normal practice for handlers to exercise their dogs off the lead while off duty.’

SOURCE





8 April, 2010

Doctors' deadly language barrier: Failure to ensure that GPs in Britain can speak English properly has cost lives, MPs told

The GMC has met Health Secretary Andy Burnham to request an end to the ban on language tests. Patients have died because ministers failed to ensure foreign doctors working out-of-hours shifts can speak English properly, MPs said last night.

It was wrong that Britain was sticking rigidly to EU rules which outlaw checks on overseas GPs' language skills - while France flouted them, said the MPs in a damning report.

The Commons health select committee also poured scorn on the Government for agreeing to GPs' demands for a lucrative contract which makes it too easy for them to opt out of responsibility for out-of-hours care. This has forced the NHS to bring in doctors from abroad.

The General Medical Council, which regulates doctors, has met Health Secretary Andy Burnham to request an end to the ban on language tests but was told that disobeying with the directive would end in fines from Brussels.

The MPs concluded: 'The GMC informed us that the situation in France was different: there, the regulator undertook language tests within the remit of the EU directive.

'If the GMC had been able to check the language skills and clinical competence of European doctors wishing to practice as GPs, lives might have been saved.' It added that employing 'European locums who have inadequate English and/or general practice expertise has led to poor care and the deaths of patients'.

The report comes days after it was revealed that a hospital in Oxford was having to send staff on English lessons because 70 different nationalities were at work there.

An inquest in February criticised the current out-of-hours arrangements following the death of patient David Gray in Cambridgeshire in 2008. He was killed by exhausted German doctor [of Nigerian origin] Daniel Ubani who administered ten times the normal dose of diamorphine.

The GMC is prevented from checking doctors' English under a European directive, which says to do so would hamper the free movement of people.

Ministers say letting the GMC to carry out such checks would land them with a huge fine from the EU - and that there is no chance to renegotiate the directive until 2012. However, primary care trusts have a legal duty to check language skills - but many of them do not do so, as the case of Dr Ubani showed. His poor English meant he was refused work by the NHS in West Yorkshire - but was later accepted in Cornwall.

The MPs said it was shocking that no one at Cornwall's Primary Care Trust had been disciplined for failing to check language competency.

The committee's report said that 'as a matter of extreme urgency', ministers should seek to get the directive changed 'to enable the GMC to test the clinical competence of doctors and undertake systematic testing of language skills so that everything possible is done to lessen, as soon as possible, the risks of employing another unsuitably trained or inexperienced doctor in out-of-hours services'.

In a stinging attack on the GPs' contract, which allowed more than 90 per cent to opt out of responsibility for patients out of hours, the committee said: 'It has some serious weaknesses, in particular in the use of [ European Economic Area] doctors and the failure to check their language skills and clinical competence, which led to the killing of a patient, Mr Gray, by Dr Ubani, a German locum.'

It added: 'The Department of Health showed little regard to securing value for money for taxpayers when they negotiated the out-of-hours GP reforms in 2004. Even Health Minister Mike O'Brien admitted to the committee that GPs had 'got the best deal they ever had from that 2004 contract and since then we have, in a sense, been recovering'.

Patients' Association director Katherine Murphy said: 'If France can implement a more rigorous system, so can we. 'If the Department of Health don't think we can then they need to explain why. Transparency is vital.'

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: 'There is a legal obligation on a PCT to refuse to admit a doctor where the PCT is not satisfied that the doctor has the necessary knowledge of English.'

Tory health spokesman Mark Simmonds said: 'This report highlights the significant failures of Labour's out-of-hours system.'

SOURCE



British teaching unions need to calm down and wise up

High dress standards improve behaviour — as good schools know

It’s that time of year again. Stony-faced belligerence, implausible allegations, wild sabre rattling, howls of pent-up anguish, cries of defiance searching for a target; yes, it’s the teaching unions’ conference season.

I like and admire teachers. I encourage my children to respect them. Granted, they have a tendency to grumble, to talk shop. Some can be prone to unworldliness, lacking insight into the world beyond the classroom.

But none of us is perfect. I think teaching a truly noble calling, among society’s most important. My parents, now retired, were schoolteachers. This is why I lament the public relations disaster inflicted annually on the profession — and state education — by the teaching unions’ conferences.

News bulletins are full of strike threats on any pretext, intemperate attacks on politicians, inspectors, examiners, bullying heads. Teachers come across as government-baiting, parent-hating, child-fearing lunatics spoiling for a fight, gathered only to agree how and when.

I know they come to let off steam, that they get carried away with conference rhetoric. Yet they don’t seem to grasp that the world is watching, and is aghast at what it sees.

This unmitigated folly must stop. Teachers I meet are not remotely like the tub-thumping conference militants. They must rescue the reputation of their profession from this annual charade. Here are five ways to do it.

• Move the conferences: the end of term is ridiculous — teachers are exhausted, snappy and at their worst. They should be in bed, certainly nowhere near a podium. Why not meet at the end of a holiday, when they have rested and calmed down?

• Merge the unions: having three is crazy, producing silly competitive behaviour and weakening teachers’ influence as ministers divide and rule. A single union would dilute the influence of the Trotskyites.

• Debate things of interest to parents: why wall-to-wall motions on workload, discrimination, pay? Why not discuss pedagogy, supported by research, expert speakers and classroom insights?

• Smarten up: jeans and Cuba Solidarity T-shirts won’t do, nor will sweatshirts, fleeces and rumpled woolies. High standards of dress improve behaviour — as we often hear from successful schools.

• Cheer up: teaching is a great job, with 71 per cent satisfied with their work, according to a YouGov survey for the National Union of Teachers, the bolshiest of the lot. So why is its conference a rage-fest? Where’s the joy, the pride, the professionalism?

All this would transform perceptions of teaching and rescue Easter from classroom militancy. Any takers?

SOURCE



Lazy British police again

Thieves! Who cares? They are only interested in political crime. Preach what the Bible says about homosexuality and they will be after you like a shot

When two thieves stole from his store and made off on foot, shopkeeper Graham Taylor gave chase. As he pursued the thieves he encountered a policeman and asked for his help. But he was angered and bemused when the officer told him: 'You had better call the police.'

But when Mr Taylor did call the police, the officers who were assigned to deal with the theft missed the radio call - because they were celebrating at a colleague's retirement party.

Last night senior officers launched an investigation into the incident after Mr Taylor lodged a complaint.

The farce began when Mr Taylor, 50, chased the two youths from his newsagents in Hessle, East Yorkshire, after they stole a bottle of whisky and a bottle of Baileys liquor. He followed the pair on foot before running back, locking up his store and jumping in his car as the teenagers made off into a nearby cemetery.

As he circled the perimeter of the graveyard, Mr Taylor spotted the officer sitting in a marked patrol car and went over to ask for his assistance. 'I couldn't believe what he said when I asked for help,' Mr Taylor said. 'First he asked if I had reported it to the police, then asked if I had rang the police. 'He was the police; was I not reporting it there and then? Why do I need to ring the police to tell them when I told a police officer.'

Mr Taylor said he then called 999 and was assured that a patrol had been dispatched to try to arrest the thieves. But it later transpired the officers in question missed the radio call as they were celebrating a colleague's retirement party inside the police station.

Mr Taylor claims he went to the police station and found a car adorned with brightly-coloured balloons and could hear shouts and cheers coming from inside the building. He said he rang the buzzer to attract the attention of a policeman but was greeted by a Community Support Officer. Mr Taylor asked what was being done about the theft from his shop but the officer had no idea what he was talking about.

He said: 'The whole thing just became more and more farcical as we went on, it was like a scene from Carry on Constable. 'I have been raised to respect the police and the work they do. It is a really hard job and I appreciate that, but I was miserably let down when I needed them.'

The shopkeeper has since made an official complaint to Humberside Police and said he has been told by an inspector that 'mistakes have been made'. A spokesman for Humberside Police confirmed an investigation was being conducted by the Professional Standards Branch. She said: 'It is disappointing to hear that Mr Taylor feels he was given a poor service from Humberside Police.'

Police are still seeking two suspects in connection with the thefts.

SOURCE



British Conservatives kill off compulsory child sex education law

Plans for compulsory sex education in schools have been dropped in the pre-election “wash up” after being blocked by the Tories. The controversial measure would have ensured every 15-year-old had at least one year of sex education lessons. It was part of Ed Balls’ Children, Schools and Families Bill, but was shelved today in the last-minute rush to get legislation through before the election.

Mr Balls, the Schools Secretary, described the move as a “significant setback” which would deny many young people a balanced education.

But the Conservatives claimed it as a victory for the freedom of parents to withdraw their children from such lessons. They also blocked new rules that would have provided greater protection for children educated at home. At the moment Britain has among the most liberal laws in the developed world and does not require parents to register or be inspected.

Khyra Ishaq, the seven-year-old girl who starved to death at the hands of her mother and stepfather in Birmingham, was supposedly being home educated by them.

A report commissioned by the Government, which recommended a compulsory national registration scheme for home educating families, caused uproar among the vocal home-schooling lobby last year as an infringement of their rights. They won Tory support. Michael Gove, Mr Balls’ counterpart, said today the plans were “draconian”, and has ensured they are left out of the Bill.

In a letter to Mr Gove, Mr Balls said the Tories were putting the wellbeing of young people at risk, and voiced “deep regret” that key measures of the Bill were not supported.

“It is our very clear intention to ensure that all the measures you have rejected are included in a new bill in the first session of the new Parliament,” he said. “I am especially disappointed that, despite our conversation, you could not agree to make personal, social and health education statutory in all state-funded schools.

“There is widespread agreement that this is essential to prepare young people for adult life, and our reforms would ensure that all children receive at least one year of compulsory sex and relationship education.”

More HERE





7 April, 2010

Unused swine flu doses leave British taxpayers facing a £150m loss

Another triumph of socialist planning!

Almost 30 million doses of swine flu vaccine ordered by the Government could go unused, at an estimated cost of up to £150 million to the taxpayer.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, confirmed yesterday that he had cancelled contracts with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for up to 90 million doses of swine flu vaccine after cases of the illness plummeted. About 5.5 million people, including health workers, have received a vaccine against the H1N1 swine flu virus, but the NHS will still face a bill for more than 34.8 million doses that have been delivered or promised.

Ministers said that a “strategic reserve” of Pandemrix vaccine would be held in case the virus returned, and the jab would continue to be offered to pregnant women as well as tourists travelling to the World Cup in South Africa and other southern hemisphere destinations.

The Conservatives said that up to £150 million had been wasted on doses of a vaccine that “no one will use”.

Ministers previously signed deals worth £155 million with GSK and another company, Baxter, for enough vaccine to protect the entire population during a pandemic. Originally, 60 million doses were ordered from GSK and 36 million doses from Baxter, but owing to production schedules, this was revised later to 90 million and 9.2 million doses respectively.

A “break clause” in Baxter’s contract was activated in February. But as part of the deal with GSK, the Government agreed to purchase further products, including an undisclosed amount of vaccine against H5N1 avian flu, to be used in case of a future pandemic. It has also purchased 300,000 doses of Relenza, GSK’s inhaled antiviral drug, that was used during the outbreak.

A total of 3.8 million doses of Pandemrix will also be donated by Britain to the World Health Organisation for distribution in Africa.

Mr Burnham said that the deal had been reached by mutual agreement and “means the UK will save approximately one third of the original value of the orders with GSK”.

But Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, claimed that up to 26 million doses of Pandemrix would be surplus to requirements. “This is a careless waste of precious NHS money,” he said.

Cases of swine flu have been falling in Britain since January, while countries such as Germany, France and Spain have also cut vaccine orders. Former “priority groups”, including patients with chronic conditions and healthy children under 5, are no longer being invited to vaccination clinics in the UK.

Paul Flynn, a Labour MP who is involved in an investigation by the Council of Europe into the flu pandemic and allegations of drug company influence on government policies, said that Britain had bought “vastly more \ than any other country we know of” and called for greater transparency on the cost.

But Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said that the Government’s handling of the pandemic had been entirely appropriate.

He added: “It’s very easy to look back with retrospect and say that things could have been done cheaper, and undoubtedly lessons could be learnt, but actually I think it’s a triumph for British industry that we managed to produce so much vaccine in so little time.”

The H1N1 virus has affected more than 213 countries or territories and has been linked to 17,483 deaths worldwide, including 457 in Britain.

SOURCE



Big London Hospital closes Emergency department after power failure

Did you expect a big NHS hospital to have adequate emergency power backup? Don't be silly! They've got too many bureaucratic salaries to pay for that. Clerks come first, not sick people

The Royal Free Hospital in London has closed its A&E department and is diverting ambulances after a power failure. The hospital in Hampstead, north London, said it had declared "a major internal incident" following the failure at 9am on Tuesday morning.

A statement said: "The hospital is currently running on an emergency generator. A&E is closed and ambulances are being diverted to other hospitals. "The hospital has cancelled all non-emergency surgery and out-patients' appointments today. Non-urgent patients are urged not to attend the hospital."

A statement from the Royal Free said later that an electrical fault caused the power failure at 8.45am.

It said: "The mains power supply has now been re-established. Although the power supply has returned, it is being tested and A&E will not be re-opened to ambulances until the trust is assured that the power supply is secure.

"A&E is seeing walk-in patients and ambulances are being diverted to other hospitals in the area."

SOURCE



Pre-election turnaround by the Leftist government: British teachers 'should use force to control violent pupils'

Teachers should use force to break up fights, stop pupils wrecking classrooms and prevent children disrupting sporting events, according to the Government. Guidance issued to schools in England warns them against having “no contact” policies, despite fears staff can be sued for restraining children.

It said the use of physical force was vital to keep order in lessons and stop the most unruly pupils running amok.

The document said that schools did not need parents’ permission before employing force or searching pupils for banned items such as weapons, alcohol, illegal drugs and stolen property.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, presented the guidelines at the NASUWT annual conference in Birmingham on Monday. It will be seen as an attempt to present Labour as the guardians of traditional discipline in schools. The move follows recommendations last week that headteachers should take parents of unruly pupils to court if they repreatedly fail to keep children in line.

But the Conservatives insisted the Government had eroded teachers’ powers to enforce good behaviour since 1997, suggesting as many as half of schools now had some form of “no contact” policy.

Mr Balls said: "Teachers have the powers they need to manage bad behaviour but I am aware that many fear retribution if they were to forcibly remove an unruly pupil. This guidance aims to stop teachers being afraid of using the powers they have when necessary.

"Myths that schools should have 'no contact policies', that teachers shouldn't be able to protect and defend themselves and others, will be dispelled by this new guidance which makes clear that in some situations, teachers have the powers and protection to use force."

The guidance provides teachers with a list of situations where physical force may be necessary. This includes when pupils are:

* *Attacking a teacher or classmate

* *Fighting and causing risk of injury to themselves or others

* *Committing – or on the verge of committing – deliberate damage to property

* *At risk of injury through “rough play” or misusing dangerous materials

* *Attempting to leave class or school at unauthorised times

* *Persistently misbehaving in a way that disrupts sporting events, school trips or lessons.

Teachers are told to first “engage the pupil in a calm and measured tone”, making it clear that behaviour is unacceptable.

It said “reasonable” physical force should be used as a last resort to control escalating bad behaviour.

Teachers should be trained in retraining techniques and adapt them to individual situations, the guidance said.

But it warned schools against employing certain moves that presented an “unacceptable risk” of injury, including the “nose distraction technique”, which involves a sharp jab under the nose, and the “double basket hold”, where pupils' arms are held across their chest.

Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, said; ““Ed Balls is wrong to say we don’t have a discipline problem in our schools – over 1,000 pupils a day are being excluded for assault and abuse.

“A key reason for this is teachers are afraid to tackle violence and disruption in the classroom – one study found that over half of schools now have some form of ‘no touch’ policy that prevents teachers from restraining troublemakers.

“Republishing existing guidance is not going to solve this problem.”

SOURCE





6 April, 2010

Even a sick toddler falls victim to the cost-cutting animals at the NHS

A mother was refused medicine for her 17-month-old daughter after it was prescribed by her GP because the pharmacist said it was too expensive, she claimed.

Kelly Bloor, 27, was given the prescription for a drug to treat her baby Olivia's chronic stomach condition. Olivia suffers 'silent reflux' which causes the contents of the stomach and acids to wash back up the throat and can affect eating and sleeping.

She had been on the medication Omeprazole but was finding the dissolvable tablets hard to swallow and had lost weight. Her mother was advised by a chemist that the drug was available in a liquid form and went to her GP who gave her a prescription.

But when she visited a pharmacy in a branch of Sainsbury's she was told the £100-a-bottle medication was too expensive to prescribe. Miss Bloor and Olivia's father, Chris Bracey, 29, were told the chemist had questioned Bedfordshire Primary Care Trust which ruled it was too expensive.

Miss Bloor, whose second baby is due in July, said: "I just can't believe that any money that could be saved would be on the back of a prescription for a 17-month-old. "It seems to me that if we had a medicine that worked we would save them money in the long run by not taking up so much of the doctor's time.

"I'm staggered by the fact they're not prepared to let us try it and see if it works - but then they don't have to put up with the sleepless nights. "It isn't that we're being awkward. If I could get Olivia to take the tablets I would, but I can't pin her down and force her to take them. "We only want to help her but it feels as if every door is being closed."

The baby was diagnosed with silent reflux when she was just a week old and has taken medication ever since. But the condition affects Olivia's eating and sleeping and the toddler can wake up crying 10 times a night.

Her mother was given the prescription for the liquid drug but then told she could not have it by the chemist in Sainsbury's in Clapham, Beds, on March 26. The couple complained to the pharmacy but claim they were told that pharmacists had been ordered to question expensive drugs to save the NHS money.

Sajida Khatri, deputy head of medicines management at NHS Bedfordshire, said GPs had been recommended not to prescribe liquid Omeprazole as it was not licensed. She added: "The GP probably didn't realise that the liquid was unlicensed.

"Because it would be from specialist manufacturers the cost goes up and also it wouldn't have any stability which is about how well it lasts in different temperatures. "As a result it only has a shelf life of around two weeks. Therefore there would have to be certain size bottles which would have to be specially ordered. "I would recommend that the patient goes back to the GP as they could re-evaluate their decision. She may have misunderstood what was said."

Olivia has now been prescribed an alternative medicine, Lamsoprazole, also in dissolvable tablet form, which her parents say she is still struggling to take.

SOURCE



British hospital has staff from 70 countries as nurses who don't even understand 'nil by mouth' forced to take English lessons

Language barriers among hospital staff can cause serious risk to patients, who may be delivered food even if they have a 'nil by mouth' sign by their bed

An NHS hospital has staff from a staggering 70 countries on its payroll. The huge number of overseas nurses, cleaners and porters has forced health chiefs to send them on ten-week English courses because many do not understand basic medical phrases.

Among the terms some workers from countries such as Burma, the Philippines and Poland can't follow are 'nil by mouth', 'doing the rounds' and 'bleeping a doctor'. They highlight the language problems throughout the Health Service, which critics say are putting patients' lives at risk.

The lessons follow several 'near-disaster' cases, including one where a meal was delivered to a patient because a member of staff did not understand that 'nil by mouth' meant the man could not eat or drink.

Although all doctors from outside the EU must pass an English language test set by the General Medical Council before they can practise, the same rules do not apply for other hospital workers. Instead, they are usually assessed on their grasp of the language at interview.

The problem has become so acute at Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals that foreign workers are being encouraged to attend ten-week, taxpayer-funded 'English For Speakers Of Other Languages' courses, which are run by a nearby college.

Research has found that up to a quarter of nurses - more than 60,000 - working in London are foreign, with the largest number coming from the Philippines. Hospitals in the capital that recruit a high number of overseas workers include University College Hospital, the Royal Free, and Guy's and St Thomas'. Manchester Royal Infirmary also has a high proportion of foreign staff from countries including India, Ghana, Spain, Germany, Iceland and the Yemen.

Jacquie Pearce-Gervis, of the Oxford Radcliffe Patients' Forum, called last night for English lessons to be made compulsory rather than voluntary. 'Patients and relatives have been calling for this for a long time,' she added. 'The language barrier can be a real issue. The most common problem is "nil by mouth".

'There have been cases when porters have delivered a patient food despite the fact there is a clear sign on their bed saying "nil by mouth". Obviously this could have led to disaster but fortunately the patient has been intelligent enough to point out that they are not allowed the food. 'I think it should be compulsory. There can often be problems with common slang terms used on the ward.'

A member of staff at the trust, who did not wish to be named, said: 'It's a real problem here and the language lessons can only be a good thing. 'We have so many foreign employees here and it's very worrying if they don't speak English.'

There have been increasing concerns over the language skills of overseas medical staff since the death of David Gray, who was unlawfully killed by a foreign out-of-hours doctor in 2008.

The 70-year-old died after Dr Daniel Ubani, 67, a German GP [from Nigeria] whose English was so poor that he had been rejected by other health authorities, gave him a massive overdose of painkillers. It was later revealed that although Dr Ubani had already failed an English language test in Leeds, he was still allowed to sit a different trust's less-stringent test.

Last night, Mr Gray's relatives called on the Government to take a tougher stance on NHS staff who could not speak English. His son Dr Stuart Gray, 49, a GP based in Belbroughton, West Midlands, said: 'It's an appalling state of affairs. It is paramount that all NHS staff should be able to speak English. Our father died at the hands of a doctor who had in fact taken an English test and failed it.

'But the GMC and the Government are unable to enforce any rules on doctors recruited from within the EU. As a result they are having to rely on Primary Care Trusts to enforce their own testing system which - as the tragedy with Dr Ubani demonstrates - isn't working. 'All NHS staff - be it doctors, nurses or other workers - must be able to speak English.'

Rainy Faisey, deputy director of human resources at Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals, said the courses were a way of giving staff in lower-paid jobs a chance to develop their skills. 'As an employer, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust offers a wide variety of training and development opportunities to its staff to help them to provide excellent care for our patients and further their career in the NHS,' she said.

'Like all good employers we give all staff the opportunity to develop their reading, writing and numeracy skills, whether their first language is English or not.'

SOURCE



The hypocrisy of the British Left's hate-mongers

The Observer newspaper prides itself on its impeccable 'liberal' credentials. Indeed, the latest edition carries a splendid editorial in support of free speech.

Yet the very same paper splashed on its front page a vituperative attack on the shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, who had the audacity to suggest that perhaps people who run bed and breakfast establishments should have the right to decide who sleeps under their own roof.

Grayling's comments arose out of a story which this column carried last week about a B&B in Wokingham run by a devout Christian, who turned away a couple of gay men. For the record, I wrote that Susan Wilkinson should not have refused to accommodate Michael Black and John Morgan. In 2010, if you run a boarding house you must expect the occasional same-sex couples as guests.

I also went on to say that she was probably in the wrong business, although I condemned the fact that she had been investigated by the police for 'hate crime' and had received vile threats, including one to burn down her home.

Some of you emailed disagreeing with me, as is your prerogative. Readers argued that since this was Mrs Wilkinson's own home, she was entitled to pick and choose her guests. That's an argument I respect, even though I don't concur. It is a difference of view among friends, nothing personal.

Chris Grayling's opinion was in line with those of you who took me to task. He says that had Mrs Wilkinson been running a High Street hotel, she would have been in the wrong because discrimination is against the law. But since this was her home, different rules applied.

That is a perfectly respectable view to take. But Grayling's remarks were secretly taped and passed to The Observer, which decided that this was a major scandal, whose importance outweighed anything else which had happened in the world last week. It was cited as evidence that the entire Conservative Party is anti-gay.

The usual hysterical suspects queued up to demand Grayling's resignation. Hereditary Labour lackey Dame Ben Summerskill, the hate-mongering bigot who runs the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, predictably went ballistic. His tried-and-tested tactic is always to howl down and smear anyone who questions any aspect of his own selfish agenda. I've been on the receiving end often enough. It comes with the turf.

Even though I have been vocal in supporting civil partnerships and equal rights for gay couples in areas such as housing, health and pensions, I have been tarred as a 'homophobe' because I don't believe 'post-dusk social networking' in public toilets is a way to behave and think that adoptive children should be placed with a man and a woman wherever possible.

Self-styled 'liberals' are now trying to destroy the career of a decent politician simply for expressing a point of view which I would guess is held by at least half the population. Secret tape recordings, smear campaigns. These are the disreputable weapons of fascists, not liberals.

I have often argued in this column that those who force 'tolerance' down our throats are among the most intolerant bullies on Earth. They only tolerate opinions which chime with their own world view. Anyone who dissents must be traduced and punished. They enforce their beliefs with totalitarian ruthlessness and, under New Labour, often with the full support of the law.

Thus, old age pensioners who protest at a gay Pride rally find themselves arrested. Scottish firemen who refused orders to attend a similar event because homosexuality offends their religious devotion are fined and suspended from work.

Those who speak out against the fashionable Leftist agenda are not merely wrong, they are denounced as inherently evil.

Until the election campaign loomed, anyone who expressed even the mildest reservations about the uncontrolled level of immigration was trashed as 'BNP', 'Little Englander' or 'racist' - the guardianistas' favourite term of abuse.

Along with many of our other traditional liberties, New Labour has mounted a sustained assault on freedom of speech. The old idea of 'I abhor what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it' has been buried alive.

Even Conservative politicians are frightened of their own shadow, scared of uttering any criticism of the modern consensus around 'diversity' lest they be cast into the outer darkness.

But, as I wrote last week, 'diversity' and 'tolerance' is a one-way street. I am reliably informed there are gays-only boarding houses which exclude heterosexuals, but I have yet to hear of one being prosecuted for operating such a policy. Unlike Susan Wilkinson they have not been pilloried and threatened. Nor will they be. Nor should they be.

With the economic debate dominating the electoral landscape, it is easy to overlook the liberties we have lost over the past 13 years. Freedom of speech is precious and must be defended at all costs.

This odious campaign against Chris Grayling is a timely reminder of the nasty, vindictive, intolerant little country we have become under New Labour.

SOURCE



Victoria Cross hero refuses to shake British Prime Minister's hand



There is widespread animosity to Brown in the British armed forces because they were sent into battle with inadequate and unsafe equipment -- resulting in avoidable deaths

Johnson Beharry, Britain's highest decorated serving soldier, refused to shake Gordon Brown's hand in a protest during a state ceremony. The winner of the Victoria Cross said Mr Brown had repeatedly disrespected him, his uniform and the Armed Forces.

The Prime Minister has since written a letter to Lance Corporal Beharry in an attempt to make amends.

But L/Cpl Beharry said it was a personal, rather than political gesture, according to The Sun. He said that Mr Brown had not looked him or any other servicemen in the eye at a reception in Downing Street in November 2008. Then in Westminster Abbey during the Remembrance Day service last November he said the Prime Minister was “fidgeting and moving” during the two minute silence. “I've got head and back injuries that put me back in hospital in a lot of pain quite regularly, so if I could do it there's no reason he couldn't," he said. "It was very rude.

“I was absolutely furious with him. All that was going through my head was to knock him out. “So on the official line-up that time, I decided I'd get his attention and let him know how I felt. “When he offered his hand to me I just turned around and walked away. I wanted him to think about his actions and it worked.”

The NCO from the 1st Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment said Sarah Brown, the Prime Minister’s wife spotted his snub and wanted to invite him to No 10 to apologise, but no invitation materialised.

L/Cpl Beharry added: "This is nothing to do with the election, or who I want to be PM. My problem is with him personally, Gordon Brown the man."

Downing Street last night said Mr Brown was "seriously concerned" about L/Cpl Beharry's comments and had immediately written to him. His spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has the utmost respect and admiration for Lance Corporal Johnson Beharry, who has shown great courage. "Mr Brown has written a personal letter to Johnson Beharry this evening to reassure him of his personal admiration and the great respect in which he is held by the whole country."

SOURCE



British teachers threaten industrial action (walkout) to keep troublemakers out of class

Long overdue

School teachers have threatened industrial action to keep dozens of “unteachable” children out of the classroom, The Daily Telegraph has learnt. Staff across England and Wales have refused to teach troublemakers after they were allowed to remain in school despite brandishing knives, attacking staff and disrupting lessons.

In most cases, teachers threaten to take legal action after attempts to expel yobs were overturned by governors or independent appeals panels. Dossiers published by the two biggest classroom unions show staff refused to teach pupils on 37 occasions over a 12 month period.

In one case, a 12-year-old boy was permanently barred from a school in Essex for carrying a knife, but was allowed back into lessons by an appeals panel. Members of the National Union of Teachers balloted for industrial action – refusing to teach – and he was eventually moved to another school.

A seven-year-old in East Sussex was expelled for assaulting a member of staff – the latest in a string of “violent and dangerous behaviour” reported by teachers – but governors refused to ratify the decision.

Staff at a Gloucestershire school threatened to walk out after an 11-year-old accused of “intimidating” pupils with a butter knife was allowed to remain in school by the governing body.

The NASUWT union refused to teach a 14-year-old boy after he sexually assaulted a classroom assistant and attacked a teacher. Governors overturned the head’s attempt to expel the pupil.

Union leaders said the cases constituted a “deeply worrying” assault on teachers’ authority.

It comes as Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, prepares to outline new rules on Monday giving teachers more power to physically restrain violent pupils.

Christine Blower, NUT general secretary, said: “If a child has really crossed the line, it is very difficult to accommodate them back in school as it is seen as a challenge to the whole institution. “This is a serious problem because it undermines the authority of a school and potentially harms the education of other children.”

Chris Keates, NASUWT general secretary, said: “Governors seem to be taking the line of least resistance to placate the minority of parents rather than to protect the majority of pupils and their staff. “If governors do not back headteachers' professional judgment in these matters then staff and school leaders cannot manage behaviour with confidence.”

The issue represents the latest in a series of concerns over teachers being undermined. At the weekend, unions warned that pupils were regularly being allowed to rate their own teachers in the classroom and interview staff applying for jobs.

In one case, it was claimed children at a school in Kent had been handed iPhones to enable them to pass instant judgments on teachers' performance to senior staff.

A head's decision to expel pupils is reviewed by governors at each school. If the decision is upheld, children and parents can also appeal to an independent panel formed by the local council. The Conservatives have promised to scrap appeals panels which they claim undermine the authority of schools.

The NUT’s latest annual report – published at its annual conference in Liverpool – show that members refused to teach children on 28 occasions in 2008.

Attempts to expel children were overturned by governors 10 times and by an independent panel on nine occasions. In other cases, the union suggested that headteachers themselves failed to take a firm line against troublemakers. The situation was usually resolved without taking formal action, normally with a “managed move” to another school.

Figures published by the NASUWT show nine children were the subject of a ballot for industrial action in 12 months. Five were expelled by heads only to be reinstated by governing bodies.

On one occasion, the NASUWT said a five-year-old boy threatened to stab a member of staff with a pair of scissors and threw chairs in his reception class.

Incidents reported by the NUT included a 10-year-old expelled from a school in Manchester for a “serious assault” on another pupil, only to be reinstated by an appeals panel.

In another case, teachers at a Cardiff comprehensive threatened to walk out after a 15-year-old was expelled for making false allegations against a colleague, but was allowed back into school following an independent appeal.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: “We are absolutely clear that heads should not hesitate to permanently exclude the worst-behaved pupil, when other sanctions have failed. "The vast majority of exclusions don't even go to appeal and where they do, it's clear independent panels are backing heads taking tough action.

"It's difficult to argue that schools are being undermined when just 60 out of over 8,000 pupils permanently excluded in 2007/08 were reinstated to their original schools following appeal - with the proportion halving in the last six years.

"No appeal will make a substantial difference where heads have gone through the proper process. No exclusions should be overturned purely on technicalities and we've told panels that no pupil expelled for violence should ever win an appeal, without very robust reasons.

"We make no apology for having independent appeals panels. Heads associations and our chief behaviour expert, Sir Alan Steer, are clear that heads would end up being dragged through the courts, if parents weren't given a fair right of appeal."

SOURCE





5 April, 2010

Security fears as NHS sends patient records to India

Official Britain is brilliant at losing patient and personnel records as it is. There was a real epidemic of it last year

Millions of patient records and confidential medical notes are being sent by the NHS to India to be processed, raising fears about data security. Databases of information including names, addresses, and NHS numbers are being sent overseas along with private health notes as managers come under increasing pressure to cut costs.

The growing accumulation of information being sent abroad has lead to fears that it will cause an increased chance of patients being identified. Security analysts said anonymity was a risk if NHS numbers were matched with anonymous medical notes.

Seven primary care trusts in north-east London, serving more than 1.5m people, are thought to have begun sending patient details abroad. The Royal Free Hospital is one of them.

A consultant reads his notes on a patient into a voice recorder. The recording is then put on a computer and sent to India where it is transcribed. Hundreds of workers in Pune, western India, then compute the information into databases.

The possible risks of transferring patient data abroad were exposed last year when undercover reporters from ITV’s Tonight programme were able to buy health records which were processed in India from a private hospital in London.

A Department of Health spokesman said: "NHS Shared Business Services provides business support services such as finance and accounting, payroll and family health services to the NHS. "It does not transcribe patient notes or doctors’ letters. In addition, no clinical data is stored or accessed offshore.

“To date, NHS SBS has delivered savings of over £50m to the NHS, freeing up funds for frontline patient care. It adheres to data protection laws, Connecting for Health’s Information Governance Requirements and the Office of Government Commerce pan-Government data security requirements.”

SOURCE



75% of Britons think that the Labour government has failed on immigration

JUST four per cent of Britons think Labour immigration policies have been a success for the country, in a fresh blow for beleaguered Gordon Brown. Three-quarters of voters believe 13 years of mass immigration have been a failure, in an exclusive eve-of-election poll for the Sunday Express.

The survey, carried out in the wake of the Prime Minister’s call for an “honest debate” on the subject, shows it is the top issue for one in five voters. The poll reveals that 42 per cent think Labour’s policies on immigration have been “generally a failure” and 33 per cent believe they were “more of a failure than a success”. Eighty-four per cent regard unlimited immigration as bad for Britain.

Fears about Britain’s recession-hit economy emerged as the key issue for 61 per cent but 20 per cent ranked immigration as their chief concern. It outstripped health (which was most important for 11 per cent of voters), education (ranked the number one concern for five per cent) and defence, which was the primary issue for just three per cent.

David Cameron has promised to put an annual cap on net immigration, bringing levels down from 147,000 in 2009 to Nineties rate in the “tens of thousands”.

The poll, carried out by Angus Reid Public Opinion, shows 41 per cent of people back the Conservatives as the party most likely to curb immigration, compared with just 12 per cent who endorsed Labour.

But it is not all good news for the Conservative leader, with 38 per cent of voters not knowing which party would be best at bringing immigration under control.

The Prime Minister reignited the immigration debate last week with a keynote speech urging the nation to conduct an “open and responsible debate” about “who comes to Britain”. His speech was overshadowed by a humiliating rebuke from the Government’s own watchdog, the UK Statistics Authority, which slammed the Prime Minister for misleading claims about immigration.

Mr Brown said voters should choose the party that could best control immigration, not “who can appeal to our worst instincts of nationalism and xenophobia”. His comments enraged the Conservatives and risked the charge of hypocrisy from a man who once pledged “British jobs for British workers” in order to win over the white, working-class vote.

The poll of 1,991 adults put the Tories on 38 per cent of the vote, a commanding 11 points ahead of Labour on 27 per cent, and the Liberal Democrats on 20 per cent. However, on a uniform swing that would still only give the Conservatives a majority of fewer than 10.

Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green said: “I am not surprised that almost the entire country recognises the complete failure of Labour’s immigration policies.

“A Conservative Government would make a big cut in the amount of net immigration into this country every year. We would have a limit on work permits and would insist that anyone who comes here to get married must speak English. We would sort out the student visa chaos and would introduce a specialist border police to fight illegal immigration. “We will be explaining these policies to people over the next few weeks before the election.”

Whitehall documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act last month, revealed that Labour encouraged mass immigration even though it knew voters opposed it.

In his third immigration speech in three years, Mr Brown said last week: “The question is, who has the best plan to control immigration? Not who can appeal to our worst instincts of nationalism and xenophobia but who can appeal to our best instincts of a fairer Britain for all the decent, hard-working families across our country.”

SOURCE



Children running the schools?

Pupil 'spies' are attempting to rid schools of strict teachers by sabotaging their promotions and snitching on their lessons, it has been claimed. They are being allowed to rate members of staff through observing their teaching, filling in anonymous questionnaires and even sitting on interview panels.

The Government has put greater emphasis on schools allowing the 'voice' of youngsters to be heard in recent years. In Ofsted forms, school heads need to illustrate how the views of pupils are taken into account. From September, headteachers will have a legal duty to consult pupils on major changes to school policy.

Now teachers say that increased pupil power means youngsters 'seem to be running schools' and feel no guilt about 'putting the boot in'.

Some pupils are complaining about strict teachers and ruining their chances of internal promotion by sitting on interview panels. They are also using their positions on these panels to humiliate staff by asking silly questions such as: 'If you could be on Britain's Got Talent, what would your talent be?' Headteachers stress that pupils only make recommendations on interview panels and their views are useful.

But the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers has warned of widespread abuse following a survey of more than 200 members. At its annual conference in Birmingham today, teachers will call for ballots of industrial action to stop 'inappropriate use' of the 'student voice'.

One teacher told how he was 'culled' from the interview process for a new job because the pupils on the panel thought he was 'too strict'. The teacher said: 'I felt upset that two out of three of the adults liked me enough but that the pupils had that much sway.'

Another claimed: 'Before you know it, students are choosing to keep "easy-going" teachers who let them do as they like and getting rid of the more strict ones.'

Other teachers complained about the unprofessional questions that pupils ask on the interview panel. They included: Can you sing your favourite song? What fancy dress character would you dress up in to go to school and why? What rewards/trips would you provide for pupils?

The survey also found some bizarre reasons why pupils voted against teachers on interview panels. One teacher took a snowboard along to impress a group of five to seven-year-olds as part of the interview but failed to get the job. The youngsters preferred two other applicants who brought in balloons and a didgeridoo. Another teacher lost out for supposedly looking like 'Humpty Dumpty'; another because he didn't allow the pupils to email him at home.

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, said: 'Children are not small adults. They are in schools to learn, not to teach or manage the school.'

SOURCE



British Leftist wants to ban zoos

A Labour minister has called for zoos to be banned, describing them as cruel 'relics of the Victorian era'. Charities minister Angela Smith said it was wrong to keep animals in captivity and called for a debate on whether the Government should close all Britain's 400 zoos.

But last night colleagues slapped her down, saying her views were personal and not those of the Government.

Ms Smith is patron of the Captive Animals' Protection Society campaign group, and earlier this year she boycotted an event because it was being held at London Zoo. She said some zoos 'tried very hard' to treat their animals well, it was in general wrong to lock animals up when their natural instinct is to roam free in the wild. 'It's inappropriate to keep wild animals in captivity this way,' she said.

'You can understand the Victorians who were amazed by what they saw when these specimens were brought back, because they couldn't travel - but now they can travel and they can see animals in amazing films and television documentaries.

'You can't shut down every zoo tomorrow, but you've got to set a point in the future where we don't bring in any more animals, then set another point saying this is the last zoo.'

She said she had received letters from children upset at the conditions they have seen animals kept in. 'It's partly emotional for me,' she said. 'In my mind I can still see a polar bear with its head swinging from side to side in a concrete enclosure. It's time we moved on.

'I'd like to get a group of people sitting down and discuss how we can end zoos, but we've got to be practical about it - there are lots of animals in zoos at the moment. No one's saying they should all be destroyed.

'We've made a lot of progress recently. If you think back to some of the tatty pets' corners we used to have and the little zoo we used to have in Basildon, we've moved on. No one nowadays finds those acceptable.'

The Captive Animals' Protection Society believes zoos are part of the entertainment industry and questions the value of the conservation work they claim to do. Zoos very rarely release animals back into the wild, they say, and keep animals - such as giraffes - that are not endangered. They say it is wrong to teach children it is acceptable to keep animals in captivity.

But zoos hit back at Ms Smith's comments. David Field, director of London Zoo and Whipsnade Zoo, said: 'To say stop bringing wild animals into zoos just shows Angela Smith’s incredible naivety about why zoos exist.

'Yes, we have species like giraffes that aren’t necessarily endangered, but when people come to see the giraffe they learn about all the incredibly endangered species in the next enclosure.

'It has to be a balance. We would never be able to get enough people into the zoo to be able to fund all this [conservation and scientific] work if all we were able to show was the less exciting animals.

'A zoo has an incredible power to connect you directly with nature. It’s unpredictable and different. The animals will react differently all the time. It may just be that an animal stands right next to a child – and that’s a life-changing moment.

'If I got the chance to see the FA Cup Final live at Wembley or on TV, I’d watch it live. In the same way I’d prefer to see the animals live at the zoo.'

Ms Smith's comments caused anger in Government, with animal welfare minister Jim Fitzpatrick accusing her of straying beyond her remit. He said: 'Angela doesn’t have responsibility for this area. We’re not going anywhere near zoos.'

Tonight a spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: 'We have no plans to ban zoos. Animal welfare is of the highest importance and ministers have recently announced that they are minded to ban animals in circuses.'

SOURCE





4 April, 2010

Health cuts 'will put lives at risk' say doctors protesting against NHS plan to axe jobs and wards

Patients’ lives will be at risk if the NHS goes ahead with secret plans to sack hundreds of doctors and nurses and close dozens of wards, clinicians warned last night.

Top doctors spoke out after a shock survey revealed that managers at cash- strapped NHS trusts were planning a devastating wave of cuts after the election. The poll revealed that a third of hospitals plan to sack doctors and other clinicians – which the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) warned could lead to further tragedies like that at Mid Staffordshire, where 1,200 patients died on a filthy A&E ward.

A quarter expect to make nurses and healthcare assistants redundant, while a further 25 per cent plan to directly cut patient services – slashing the number of beds or operations provided.

The survey of NHS finance directors, in the respected Health Service Journal magazine, makes a lie of ministerial claims that post-election cuts will not affect the frontline.

Health Secretary Andy Burnham wants the NHS to make £20billion of cuts by 2014 – and insists the savings can be made without affecting patient care. But the survey indicates that this statement is, at best, wildly optimistic.

Dr Andrew Goddard, the RCP’s director of medical workforce, said last night: ‘Reducing clinical staff is a quick fix when times are tight, but ends up costing far more in both financial and human costs in the long term. ‘We must not fall back on the panicked slash-and-burn policies of the past if we are to avoid repeating the horrors of Mid Staffs.’

Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb said: ‘After 13 years of Labour government it is scandalous that we are facing the prospect of cuts to frontline services. It’s very far from what was promised and what voters should expect.’

Both the main parties say they will increase NHS spending in real terms after the election. But an ageing society and the increasing drugs bill mean that, even once these rises are taken into account, billions of pounds of cuts will have to be found elsewhere.

The magazine survey of its panel of 45 finance directors – one in nine of the total – found that even more frontline services would be in the firing line after the election. Some 25 per cent of hospitals plan to ‘reduce capacity’ – meaning slashing operations, or cutting wards or beds.

Critics say the number of beds in the NHS is already too low, increasing the risk of infection.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: ‘We cannot allow a second-rate service to develop with cuts in clinical staff. ‘We have been given reassurance after reassurance that frontline services will be protected, but this survey shows the rhetoric doesn’t seem to match the reality in some places.’

Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley said: ‘Frontline services are at risk under Labour. 'The number of managers is rising five times as fast as the number of nurses and now Labour’s boom-and-bust approach means hospitals are having to look at cuts.’

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘To ensure the quality of NHS services continues to improve, services must be more productive.’

SOURCE



ClimateGate Whitewash

By S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

There is now a desperate effort afoot by assorted climate alarmists to explain away the revelations of the incriminating e-mails leaked last year from the University of East Anglia (UAE). But the ongoing investigations so far have avoided the real problem, namely whether the reported warming is genuine or simply the manufactured result of manipulation of temperature data by scientists in England and the United States.

The latest report is by the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails. How can we tell that it’s a whitewash? Here are some telltale signs:

* It refers to the e-mails as “stolen”

* It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics

* Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC

None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated. But this is really the most important task for any investigation, since it deals directly with the central issue: Is there an appreciable human influence on climate change in the past decades?

Instead, much of the attention of newspapers, and of the public, has focused on secondary issues: the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the possible inundation of the Netherlands, deforestation of the Amazon, crop failures in Africa, etc. While these issues demonstrate the sloppiness of the IPCC process, they don’t tell anything about the cause of the warming: natural or anthropogenic.

So what do the e-mails really reveal? We know that Jones and his gang tried and largely succeeded in “hiding the decline" of temperature by using what he termed “Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick.” Most people think it refers to CRU tree ring data after 1960, which do show a decline in temperature. However, I believe that it refers to Michael Mann’s “trick” in hiding the fact that his multi-proxy data did not show the expected warming after 1979. So he abruptly cut off his analysis in 1979 and simply inserted the thermometer data supplied by Jones, which do claim a strong temperature increase. Hence the hockey-stick, suggesting a sudden major warming during the past century.

Only a thorough scientific investigation will be able to document that there was no strong warming after 1979, that the instrumented warming record is based on data manipulation, involving the selection of certain weather stations, [and the de-selection of others that showed no warming], plus applying insufficient corrections for local heating.

SCIENCE EDITORIAL #10-2010 (April 3, 2010)



An important press release

(To resize the type, hold down CTRL and move the wheel on your wheelmouse)



(Zermatt is a Swiss ski resort near the famous and formidable Matterhorn. It is not for the poor)



Asylum seekers are lured to the UK by its 'enormous' benefits, says Calais mayor in blistering attack on Britain

Britain's ‘enormous’ state handouts to asylum seekers were furiously criticised yesterday – by the Mayor of Calais. Natacha Bouchart said these payouts were the lure for thousands of foreigners using the French port as a staging point to cross the Channel illegally.

She said the UK government’s policy was ‘imposing’ migrants on the town, costing the local economy millions. Mrs Bouchart, 45, a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party, said she was so disgusted by what was going on that she refused to have any meetings with British government representatives.

She said the British system was predominantly to blame for thousands of Africans, eastern Europeans and Asians trying to clamber aboard lorries and trains in Calais every day.

‘Requesting asylum is easier with them (the British) than in France. The asylum seeker is given accommodation and receives up to £40 a week according to their case, when the annual income of the average Eritrean is around $200 (£135). ‘That seems enormous and it’s attractive to them.’

In Britain, asylum seekers can receive payments as soon as a claim is lodged. In France, an asylum seeker generally is given nothing for six months. That is because the French bureaucratic system means it routinely takes a minimum of six months to have a claim for asylum – and with it the opportunity to receive state support – accepted.

Once accepted, the claimant can receive a range of benefits – but almost all prefer to try to reach Britain and secure immediate benefits. Married asylum-seeking couples in the UK receive £66.13 a week, while single people get up to £42.16. They are also entitled to free NHS care, housing and education for any children.

Home Office Minister Phil Woolas has been seeking closer cooperation with France in the hope of preventing the crisis in Calais from escalating.

Ministers have been alarmed by figures showing the number of migrants caught trying to reach Britain by stowing away on lorries at Calais has doubled over the last year to more than 2,000 a month. The count of 6,031 in the first three months of this year compares with 2,919 caught by port security services trying to gain access to trucks queueing for ferries between January and March 2008.

The pressure on the port of Calais is being matched at the Channel Tunnel terminal outside the town, which has reported a 50 per cent rise in illegal migrants over last year. Most are trying to board lorries waiting for places on freight trains.

Mrs Bouchart said she had received many requests for a meeting with UK officials to attempt to sort out the mess. ‘I’ve never followed them up because I consider them provocative. To receive in the city hall a representative of the British governmentis to support what it imposes on us.’

The mayor pointed out that the Calais Chamber of Trade was having to pay £12million a year to secure the port area – money she suggested the French government should provide.

Calling for a ‘change in attitude’, Mrs Bouchart said the current build-up of UK-bound foreigners was ‘untenable’. ‘Each day the town of Calais finds itself under psychological pressure because of the presence of the migrants. ‘That blocks our economic development. That stops some businesses from establishing themselves and that costs a lot.’

Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: ‘The Mayor of Calais is right that the long-term chaos in our immigration system, from badly-protected borders to the Home Office not sending an officer to many appeal hearings, encourages people to try their luck. ‘The answer for Britain and the people of Calais is a well-run immigration system with a proper Border Police Force.’

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, said: ‘Gallic logic has reached the inescapable conclusion that Britain is a soft touch for asylum seekers. ‘You only have to say the word asylum and you have an 80 per cent chance of staying in Britain, more often than not illegally.’

In response, Mr Woolas said: ‘The illegal migrants in Calais are not queueing to get into Britain – they have been locked out by one of the toughest border crossings in the world. These successful controls have been possible thanks to the close co-operation of the French government.

‘Benefits are only available to those who play by the rules, work hard, pay taxes and learn to speak English. ‘I have made it clear that those trying to cheat our system will not be tolerated, which is why last year UK Border Agency staff worked tirelessly at our French and Belgium controls – stopping more than 28,000 attempts to cross the Channel illegally.’

Source



Leading British Conservative defends freedom for "Bed & Breakfast" owners

Says that they should be treated like the private homes that they mostly are

DAVID CAMERON was last night embroiled in a row over his party’s views on homosexuality after a member of the shadow cabinet was taped arguing that bed and breakfast owners should not have to offer rooms to gays, writes Isabel Oakeshott.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said he believed that people who ran B&Bs should have the right to decide whether to have homosexuals staying in their homes. Under equality laws introduced in 2007, B&B owners cannot turn away gays.

According to a report in The Observer, Grayling told a meeting of the Centre for Policy Studies think tank: “I personally ... took the view that if it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home.”

He drew a distinction with hotels, which he said should admit gay couples. “I really don’t think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away,” he said.

Labour claimed that the comments showed the Conservatives were prejudiced against homosexuals.

SOURCE



British politicians warn over ‘shocking decline’ of school trips

Pupils have increasingly been denied the chance to visit museums, galleries, theatres and the countryside in recent years, it was claimed. In a damning report, the Commons schools select committee warned that the likelihood of children enjoying any green space at all had “halved in a generation”. One expert told MPs that the drop – combined with parental fears over child safety – meant many young people were becoming “entombed” in the home instead of being allowed out to play.

The conclusions were made despite a Government drive to increase the number of school trips. Recently, ministers have issued new guidance to teachers attempting to cut health and safety red tape as well as launching a kite mark to accredit organisations hosting school parties.

But MPs insisted that the measures had failed to increase the take-up – suggesting that a sharp drop reported five years ago had continued. In a document published on Thursday, they said that each pupil should have an entitlement to at least one school trip every term.

Barry Sheerman, the committee’s Labour chairman, said: "The steep decline in the amount of time children are spending outside is shocking. “Research has shown that the likelihood of a child visiting any green space has halved in a generation. "It is vital for the Government to make a commitment to a serious funding increase to ensure that all children have opportunities to visit the wealth of museums and galleries, and the natural environment of the English countryside, which are at our disposal. “

MPs quoted a recent survey by the Countryside Alliance that showed only around half of six- to 15-year-olds go on a trip to the countryside with their school. This has been coupled with a more general decline in the amount of time that children spend outside, the committee said.

Other research by Natural England has found that the likelihood of a child visiting any green space at all has halved in a generation. Almost two-thirds of children played indoors at home more often than any other place, it found.

MPs cited a number of reasons for the decline in school trips. The report said that that funding to support education outside the classroom had been “derisory”. Since 2005, just £4.5 million has been allocated, including £2.5m on a single residential initiative, it was claimed. By comparison, MPs found that £40m has been spent on one scheme to boost the amount of singing in schools.

The report also said that teachers' fears over “health and safety litigation, making them reluctant to offer trips and visits, have not been effectively addressed”.

In a further conclusion, the study said that teacher training continued to pay “scant attention” to giving new staff members the skills and confidence to lead outings.

MPs also blamed rules that effectively barred heads from asking teachers to cover for absent staff. Schools are supposed to pay for supply teachers instead of ordering existing staff members to step in when colleagues are leading trips. The move was introduced in September to ease teachers’ workloads.

But the select committee was told that many schools are simply cancelling outings altogether instead of raiding stretched budgets to pay for supply staff.

Attractions and study centres reported a “significant reduction” in the number of bookings following changes to teachers’ contracts imposed last year.

SOURCE





3 April, 2010

Cancer patients still being denied important new drugs, say Tories

Cancer patients are still being denied access to effective drugs by an NHS watchdog, despite official guidance asking experts to place more value on treatments for the terminally ill, the Conservatives claim today.

The Tories accused the Government of breaking promises to provide greater access to a wider range of drugs, claiming that no new cancer drug has been fully approved for use on the NHS since November 2008 in England and Wales.

Charities say that patients with rare cancers, in particular, are being denied the latest, high-cost drugs, which are not considered cost-effective but can allow them extra months or years of life.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which uses independent committees of experts and public consultations to decide whether a medicine respresents good value for money for the NHS, turned down one in four new cancer treatments it looked at last year, and approved others only for select groups of patients or after striking price deals with manufacturers.

This is despite guidance issued by NICE in January last year, stating that drugs should be given special consideration if they could help to treat conditions such as liver or kidney cancer, which affect fewer than 7,000 patients a year.

The guidance was designed to speed up NICE’s appraisals process, and reduce the postcode lottery whereby some patients can have drugs funded by local health authorities while others do not.

But the Conservatives said that for at least 19 out of 21 cancer drugs assessed last year, British patients were less likely to be given the drug than in other European countries.

NICE insists that it recommends 85 per cent of the treatments it looks at for use on the NHS. But Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, said that the overall number of treatments being approved by the watchdog had declined since 2000.

“It is unforgiveable that thousands of cancer sufferers in England die each year because they are not given the drugs that they need when we spend over a hundred billion pounds a year on the NHS,” Mr Lansley said.

“Gordon Brown has doubled the amount we spend on the NHS but we have not got a good return for our money — so much of it has been spent on waste and bureaucracy. “There is no reason why we should not be able to get cancer drugs in England that are readily available in the rest of Europe.”

The Rarer Cancers Forum estimated last month that as many as 16,000 patients may have been denied access to treatments because NICE had concluded that they did not meet the criteria for consideration, or they were deemed too expensive.

The Tories added that NICE’s committees did not consider value-based-pricing schemes — to make expensive treatments available by sharing the cost of the drugs with the pharmaceutical industry — in 40 per cent of new cancer treatments.

Helen Rainbow, policy analyst at Macmillan Cancer Support, said: “We are pleased the Conservatives are highlighting the issue of access to cancer treatments, in particular the high number of drugs for rarer cancers rejected by NICE since November 2008.

“The way drugs are currently approved for use on the NHS is penalising people with rarer cancers, such as liver or kidney cancer, and must be reformed. People don’t choose what cancer they get and shouldn’t lose out simply because of the rarity of their condition.

“A more flexible system is needed to end the inequality in access to cancer treatments, improve survival rates and bring the UK in line with other European countries.”

But Sir Andrew Dillon, chief executive of NICE, questioned the Tories’ figures and said that treatments would be recommended only when it was a good use of NHS funds. Of the 14 anti-cancer treatments NICE has appraised, since November 2008, nine have been recommended for use in the NHS, although in some cases their use was restricted. “It makes sense, for patients, as well as the NHS, to use new treatments when they bring the most benefit,” he said.

“Not all patients with a particular condition benefit from a drug, and some drugs only work really well for some patients, or at a particular stage in a disease. That’s why we target the use of some new drugs. “It’s wrong to recommend the use of treatments where the additional benefit is uncertain. This is misleading for patients and wastes scarce NHS resources.”

SOURCE



British children in crowded classes

This is just the usual teacher nonsense. Good teachers can easily handle much larger classes than what teacher unions push for. There is a case for small classes among the very young but not otherwise

Children are still being taught in “hideously overcrowded” classrooms after 13 years of Labour, according to teachers. Some pupils are being asked to share classes with 35 other children in a move that threatens to undermine education standards, it was claimed. The National Union of Teachers said “reducing class sizes” should be the number one priority for any incoming Government.

In 1997, ministers pledged to cut classes for five- to seven-year-olds. Under current legislation, schools are banned from teaching infants – Key Stage 1 pupils – in lessons of more than 30.

Speaking at the union’s annual conference, Christine Blower, NUT general secretary, said it was hoped that cuts to classes for the very youngest pupils would filter through to older year groups. But she said many children were stuck in lessons of “34, 35, or 36”.

“There are still classes that are hideously overcrowded,” she said. “We cannot say [ministers] have not fulfilled their pledge on Key Stage 1 classes, but that was never enough and the aspiration that this would simply roll on through has not happened.”

Almost six in 10 NUT members responding to a union survey said that reducing class sizes should be the top priority for the Government – irrespective of the outcome of the general election. Kevin Courtney, deputy general secretary, said that cuts to school budgets in some areas meant primary school classes were being merged.

He cited one school in Gloucestershire that had been forced to put children in a lesson of 36. “Pupil numbers have been falling so they have had to combine two smaller classes into a class of 36 because they have not got the money,” he said. “Clearly that damages the education of those children.”

The union has already launched a campaign demanding that the average class size is cut to 20 by the end of the decade.

Figures last month showed at least 210 state primary school teachers were regularly leading lessons of at least 41 children last year. In addition, around one-in-eight pupils in England were in classes of more than 30, it was revealed.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Over the last 10 years we have massively increased the number of adults teaching children. “Over 98 per cent of infant classes are under the statutory limit and the average size is 26.2.

“We expect local authorities and schools to take their legal responsibility to limit class sizes very seriously. There can be no excuses for any infant class that is unlawfully over the legal limit.”

SOURCE



British Conservative leader defends foxhunting

David Cameron has disclosed that he went hunting as a boy as he insisted that the fox population needed to be controlled. In a frank interview the Conservative leader talked freely of his love of the countryside and said he was taught to shoot rabbits by his father.

Confirming that he would allow Tory MPs a free vote on decriminalising hunting with dogs if he were to become prime minister, Mr Cameron said: " I always thought that the ban was a mistake because I think it is very difficult to enforce. "I think it’s somewhere where the criminal law shouldn’t go and I think that the mess we have now pretty much proves that."

Speaking of the 'pest control' case for repealing the ban, he said: "The point is that the fox population has to be controlled. "Every farmer will tell you that and every farmer will also tell you that the methods now being used - in more cases gassing and shooting and trapping and snaring - are, as the Burns inquiry itself found, very very cruel."

He told Nicky Campbell on BBC Radio 5: "The case on animal welfare grounds for the hunting ban, I’ve always thought was very very weak."

Hunting with dogs has been illegal since February 2005, but the ban has only led to a handful of successful prosecutions.

Asked to explain what Campbell called "the joys of hunting", Mr Cameron responded: "I’m a country boy, I was brought up in the countryside and I love walking in the countryside and riding in the countryside and every aspect of growing up in the countryside. "I was taught to fish by a wonderful grandfather. I was taught to shoot rabbits by my dad. I’ve always been a country boy and I went hunting as well."

But conscious that images of him atop a horse dressed in full hunting costume would not go down well among most urban voters, Mr Cameron sidestepped a question about whether he would himself go hunting if the ban was repealed. "I personally have got other things I'm hoping to do," he said.

However, he promised a free vote on the issue, saying: "MPs take different views, there are Conservatives in my party who support the hunting ban. "It will be a free vote in the House of Commons and if the ban if kept it’s kept and if it’s repealed it’s repealed.

SOURCE



UK Parliamentary Report unintentionally condemns climate science generally

The UK Parliamentary Committee was always going to be a whitewash. They put no skeptics on the committee; they interviewed no skeptics; they didn’t ask Steven McIntyre to speak. They tried to put people on the committee like Phillip Campbell, who had already pronounced it was a done deal and ClimateGate a non-event, but were forced to settle for people who were more covertly sympathetic: “impartial” people like committee chairman Phil Willis, who had already made up his mind in January and announced it in the Telegraph:

“There are a significant number of climate change deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science that has been changed or at worst manipulated. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so the public can see what they are saying”

It’s no wonder the committee made a spin-like press release with wishy-washy weasel words. What’s amazing is that under the spin, they can’t help but bust all of modern climate science.

The UK report: [press release]

“The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

The translation:

We were looking in the wrong spot. We don’t think Phil ought to get busted for just doing what all the other sloppy, biased scientists do. He did hide data, but so does everyone else. The whole of climate science has bogus practices that need to change.

It’s official: common practices across all climate science are so poor they need to change.

The UK Report:

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible:… [para 51]

Translation:

We here in the once-Great British Isles are now happy to accept getting most of the data instead of the full complete set. From now on, we will also accept most of the receipts for your tax returns instead of the original copies, and we will accept most of the receipts of government ministers on working trips to Barbados. Near enough is good enough. With trillions of dollars at stake, it’s no time to get fussy.

The UK Report

[T]he results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

Translation:

The results of the EAU agree with data sets around the world that are also sloppy, incomplete, unverifiable, and by NASA’s own email disclosures, even worse than the EAU’s. This meets the standards of the British Government.

More HERE



Thou shalt not criticise homosexuals

What kind of country arrests religious preachers in the streets and drags them to court? Britain, actually.

"A born-again Baptist who travels from America to preach the word of God on the streets of Britain is bound to be a bit … shall we say ‘eccentric?’ It should come as no surprise that such a person would be intolerant of homosexuality, which is regarded as a sin amongst Baptists.

But should religious people who hold such views be punished for expressing them in public? That is what the arrest and fining of the American Christian, Shawn Holes, in Glasgow earlier this month suggests.”

Source

There is not much free speech in Britain. Only Britain's highest court (the Privy Council of the Supreme Court) occasionally allows it and going to them is an expensive proposition.





2 April, 2010

Careless Indian doctor kills six NHS patients

A heart specialist is facing being struck off following an investigation into the deaths of six of his patients, it has emerged.

Dr Joe Motwani is accused of acting in an inadequate and careless manner when treating patients for heart disease. He was suspended from Derriford Hospital in Plymouth, Devon in July 2008 and a review of nearly 600 of his patients conducted.

The review raised concerns about the treatment of 49 patients, four of whom died as a result of complications arising from a treatment to open arteries in the heart.

Hospital officials also found a further two under his care died as a result of complications due to inadequate administration of a clot-busting drug.

Dr Motwani was carrying out a stenting procedure to open the arteries of the heart and hold them open with a metal scaffold. It is used in patients with heart disease or following a heart attack. It can avoid the need for bypass surgery in selected patients.

Dr Motwani used a technique where a tube is passed through the artery in the wrist to get to the heart that was invented in Toulouse, France. Another method uses the bigger artery in the leg to access the heart.

A spokesman for the General Medical Council said he faced allegations that he carried out procedures "without conducting an appropriate prior assessment" which was a "serious falling short of the technical standard expected of a consultant cardiologist".

He said: "The panel will consider allegations that Dr Motwani, whilst the principal investigator for two research trials, conducted the trials in a manner that was inadequate, careless, risked compromising the integrity of the trials and was unethical.

"It is also alleged that Dr Motwani acted in a manner that was inappropriate, unprofessional and not in the best interests of his patients by not acting on concerns about his clinical practice articulated by his colleagues and that on occasions he acted in a manner unduly influenced by his own interests."

Dr Motwani, of Tavistock, Devon, was appointed as a consultant cardiologist at Derriford Hospital from 1999.

SOURCE



The profit motive has a place in the classroom

If businesses can help more children to learn we should let them make money – and hire and fire teachers

During a particularly fractious debate about schools reform, a Gordon person once said to a Tony person: “Delivering an education isn’t like delivering a pizza, you know.” “Ah no, it’s not,” replied the Tony person, sagely, “but it might be rather like making one.”

Actually, education isn’t remotely like either making or delivering a pizza. You could go so far as to say that education has got nothing to do with pizzas at all. The exchange does, all the same, contain two insights into education policy, one about the past, the other about the future.

What a tragedy that two intelligent people could have such a stupid conversation in public. This is the standard of argument you get when the two principals, for whom the pizza warriors were agents, are having an altogether more fundamental fight — a fight for control.

I was thinking of the pizzas during Tony Blair’s deft critique of the Tories at Trimdon Labour Club. It was a clever speech; whoever writes his stuff these days is a lot better than the last guy. But to hear Mr Blair heap praise on Gordon Brown was deeply frustrating for anyone who wishes their party well. As Mr Blair left the stage in Sedgefield, it was impossible not to recall the moment he shared an ice cream with Mr Brown during the 2005 campaign and wonder how much more might have been done, if only the pair of them had managed to make their extraordinary, and complementary, talents point in the same direction.

They might have averted the charge that their progress was bought at too great a price. They might have had a leaner State that bought more services and ran fewer. They might have built a system in which improvement was organic and therefore much more recession-proofed. The three sorriest examples are education, education, education.

There might, by now, have been many different types of school, catering for pupils with different aptitudes. The lines between public, private and voluntary sector would mean less. Private money and expertise would be common in state schools. Federations and school chains would be the norm. New schools would have sprung up, established and run by entrepreunerial teachers. Schools would all be independent entities, with the right to hire, fire and vary pay. They would use data to track their progress, like the pioneering Michelle Rhee in Washington DC.

There is some evidence of all of these things. The Prime Minister endorsed most of them in a speech on education two weeks ago. But it is far, far too late. It is the 59th minute of the 11th hour of a day in which your protaganists have been disrupting a conference saying that reforming schools is the equivalent of setting up a pizza parlour.

What the long scream between Brown and Blair has left undone, it will fall to the Conseratives to complete. Schools reform may yet become this generation’s utilities privatisation. Opposed all the way by the Labour party, selling the utilities — transport apart — worked. Nobody now wants to go back in time. Parties sometimes need to be taught a lesson by their opponents. If the Tories manage a revolution in schools, this attempt to change their party brand would be the tribute that Tory vice has paid to Labour virtue.

There is a serious risk that it might not happen, for the reason contained in the pizza row. We are unconcerned when wicked pen-pushers make a dirty profit from supplying our children with writing implements. But woe betide any company that offers to teach kids to read while turning a profit. I know, I know. Pens are not books and being able to write is not the same as learning to read. But we already permit companies such as EdisonLearning to manage schools. VT Group makes a living training school staff. Serco makes a healthy return managing the facilities. All of this is profit that comes out of the public grant.

And yet, if a company wins a contract in which it promises, on pain of no payment, to teach children to read, the politicians — Tory as well as Labour — think that a principle of scholarly detachment is being breached. But is there really any vital violation if, in return for the gift of literacy, a company gains a capped profit, just like a utility? Electricity companies keep the lights on, partly because keeping the lights on is what they do and partly because a regulator is checking up on them. As long as the standards demanded are clear and rigorously policed, the existence of profit is not the difference between good and evil.

It might, though, be the difference between present and absent. There is not an infinite supply of public-spirited parents, teacher buyouts and philanthropic capital. Charities that run schools cannot be expected to stump up the capital, and it is obvious that the supply of public money has dried up. It is only if a firm can expect a profit that it can be told to provide the start-up capital itself.

Even if enough providers can be found, there could be serious trouble ahead with the workforce. If you don’t do Easter or if you decide to cancel it, try to catch the proceedings of the teacher union conferences, which may be playing on an obscure cable channel. Some of the leaders are ready to add their weight to the industrial militancy of Unite and the RMT. The cocktail of cuts to existing budgets and encouragement of competition could easily lead to a serious breakdown of communication between a Conservative government and the teaching unions.

There will be a lot at stake for the Labour party in these circumstances. The quality of education at the bottom of the pile needs new schools, new teachers, new ways of working, underpinned by strong government — audit, inspection and a tough failure regime. The paradox of market reforms to the public sector is that they create a new, but extensive, role for the State. It is to be hoped that the Conservatives don’t think the Big Society (answers on a postcard) can step in here.

If the Conservatives do fail, the cause of public service reform on the Left will dwindle. It is hard for people with a partisan leaning to wish success on their oppponents. It’s harder still when you know you ought to have done this yourself. It’s yet harder again to know you might have finished by now if you’d only been capable of avoiding those silly arguments about delivering pizzas, which you knew, even then, were a surrogate for a much bigger dispute that would go on and on and on, until both of them were gone.

SOURCE



"Nothing can be done" about sexual abuse in British grade school

An education authority took two years to investigate claims that a six-year-old girl had been sexually abused by classmates, it was alleged yesterday.

The girl, who claimed that she was being stripped and abused on a daily basis by up to 23 tormentors aged between 6 and 10, has since been moved to another school. No action has been taken against the other children involved.

Keith Towler, the children's commissioner for Wales, described the delay as a "shocking failure" and said: "The bottom line is the family will never know what happened to their child."

The claims were made by the girl’s mother, who told BBC Wales that she found out that her daughter was being abused from the mother of another child who was also being bullied. She said: "I said. 'It's OK, you can tell mammy' and then it all started to come out. Her eyes were like marbles of fire.

"She was telling me things I think every mother dreads to hear from their daughter. It was horrendous what she'd gone through. Every day she was being stripped. She was being physically and sexually abused every day and every day she cried out for help and nobody ever came."

The mother said that the school was sympathetic but claimed that the bullies' ages and a lack of evidence meant that no action could be taken. The mother added: "They said the children couldn't be suspended. Because they had sexually abused my daughter and they were only six years old, they were victims themselves and wouldn't be suspended."

No details of the school or the education authority have been revealed to protect the girl's identity, however it is understood to be in South Wales.

It was only when the girl was moved to another school and her mother began legal action against the local education authority, which cannot be named, that the serious case review was ordered. The review claimed that it was "very difficult to establish the extent, degree and involvement of specific children" and that they were all "under the age of criminal responsibility". The inquiry recommended changes to anti-bullying policies and the way incidents were recorded.

Mr Towler said: "Clearly there are issues with the serious case review system and there is consensus the current serious case review arrangements are not working effectively. "The Welsh government has heard those calls for change and is responding." He said that the Assembly had set up two bodies to improve procedures.

Mr Towler added: "The establishment of the Welsh Safeguarding Forum aims to ensure that safeguarding is achieved at a national, regional and local level. "This forum’s work is critical in ensuring the system is strengthened and that joint working is improved to safeguard our children. "This forum and the advisory group must address the ineffective system which will result in change in practice.

"We cannot find ourselves in the same position again where the system is failing some of our most vulnerable children. "Clearly there are issues with the serious case review system and there is consensus that the current serious case review arrangements are not working effectively.

"The Welsh government has heard those calls for change and is responding. I will not yet be undertaking a review but instead will be working with practitioners and other relevant officials on two groups which the deputy minister for social services has convened.

Neelam Bhardwaja, president of the Association of Directors for Social Services in Wales, said: "If there are these number of children involved, it begs the question where did that behaviour arise from? Why are these children behaving in this way and are they from abusive situations themselves, which they need protecting from?"

A Welsh Assembly government spokesman said that it took "its roles and responsibilities around the safeguarding of children very seriously". [Utter bulldust!]

SOURCE



HRT 'does NOT raise risk of breast cancer'

Is that discredited scare truly dead at last?

Confusion about the safety of HRT grew yesterday as a study showed it does not increase the risk of breast cancer. Analysis of the health records of millions of British women in their 50s and 60s found no correlation between use of the controversial treatment and rates of the disease.

Fears over the drug’s safety were first raised in 2002, when a major U.S. study linked it to a range of ills, including breast cancer and heart disease.

Following the scare, hundreds of thousands of British women abandoned the treatment, with the number taking hormone replacement therapy to help them through the menopause halving to one million by 2005.

But the Women’s Health Initiative study did not focus on women in their 50s – the most common age for HRT users in the UK. Reanalysis of the data found the health risks may apply only to older women, who have already gone through the menopause and who are not typical HRT users.

However, worries about the treatment – which usually contains a combination of the sex hormones oestrogen and progesterone – have refused to go away. Many women are still scared to take HRT and, just a year ago, fears about its link to breast cancer were reignited when a study concluded that taking the drug could double the risk of developing the disease.

It reported that using HRT for as little as two years increased the danger. However, it added that when patients stopped the therapy, their odds quickly improved, returning to normal two years later.

Now, in an attempt to resolve the argument, researchers from Bristol University have looked at whether the rates of various diseases changed during the years that women turned their backs on the drug. If HRT does raise the risk of breast cancer, incidences of the disease should have fallen after 2002 as HRT use declined.

But the scientists found that the treatment’s drop in popularity did not affect breast cancer rates at all, suggesting HRT is not a factor in developing the disease. Similarly, use of HRT was found to have no association with rates of bowel cancer or hip fractures, the Journal of Public Health reports.

Like the U.S. study, the British analysis did suggest that HRT is associated with a higher risk of serious blood clots – but the researchers were not confident the drug was to blame.

However, they did not give HRT a completely clean bill of health, saying that the exercise should be repeated over a longer timescale to detect any cancers or other problems that take a long time to develop.

HRT is used to combat symptoms of the menopause, such as hot flushes, mood changes and night sweats. The treatment can be taken via a range of methods, including tablets, implants, skin gels and patches. Its long-term benefits may include a reduced risk of osteoporosis.

SOURCE



Chinese medicine sellers face regulation crackdown in Britain

It has always amazed me that regular pharmaceuticals are so tightly regulated when "alternative" medical practitioners can give people all sorts of dangerous and damaging stuff

Shops and clinics selling herbal and Chinese medicine are to be regulated for the first time. Health Secretary Andy Burnham has indicated he will tighten the law in an attempt to protect the public from ill-trained and bogus practitioners.

Almost 2,500 qualified herbalists and Chinese medicine practitioners will lose the right to supply a wide range of medicines because they are not signed up to a statutory regulation scheme.

Fears have been raised about the lack of regulation around herbal and Chinese medicine, which is often sold via high street shops, online and in private clinics.

Last month a judge criticised the lack of regulation after hearing of the case of Patricia Booth, 58, who was treated for a skin condition for five years with pills sold by a Chinese herbal medicine retailer - and later suffered bladder cancer and kidney failure.

Mr Burnham said yesterday that he was ‘minded to legislate’ so practitioners supplying unlicensed medicines have to register with the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council. However, the CHNC is a voluntary body, unlike the Health Professions Council which oversees statutory regulation of chiropractors and osteopaths.

Further talks are to be held with professional bodies and devolved governments before a decision is made on changing the law.

Fears have been raised about the lack of regulation around herbal and Chinese medicine, which is often sold via high street shops, online and in private clinics. Last month a judge slammed the lack of regulation after hearing of the death of a Patricia Booth, 58, who was treated for five years with cancer-causing pills sold by a Chinese herbal medicine retailer.

Mr Burnham insisted the new register 'will increase public protection' without placing 'unreasonable extra burdens on practitioners'. He has not yet decided whether to regulate acupuncture treatment.

But the European Herbal and Traditional Medicine Practitioners Association said the plan was a 'cop-out' because the CHNC lacks the structure, staff, financial resources or legal power to provide statutory regulation.

Chairman Michael McIntyre said 'Herbalists should be regulated like other statutorily regulated healthcare practitioners or the public will lose access to properly regulated herbalists and a wide range of herbal medicines.

'The Government must give detailed assurances that the legal and structural basis of statutory regulation is fit for purpose or it will betray the millions of people who regularly consult herbal practitioners. 'So far the Government has singularly failed to provide these guarantees.'

At least six million Britons have consulted a herbal practitioner in the last two years, according to Ipsos Mori research. As many as one in 12 adults has used herbal medicines obtained from a Western or traditional Chinese practitioner.

Prince Charles, a long-standing supporter of complementary therapies, met Mr Burnham when he voiced his support for formal regulation of herbal practitioners.

Dr Michael Dixon, medical director to the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, said he hoped a full statutory scheme would be introduced because 'light touch' regulation or licensing would fail to protect the public. He said 'It would be an extraordinary combination of carelessness about patient safety with more nanny state interference.

'It could allow those with no more than 4 – 6 weeks basic training to access powerful herbs, prepare their own remedies and offer treatment to the public. That will risk more cases of serious harm to patients treated by inexperienced, inadequately trained practitioners.

'A bizarre consequence of anything less than statutory regulation would be that, combined with EU rules, it would effectively ban even those with full training and qualifications from providing many herbal medicines currently in use. They would not be permitted access to manufactured or pre-prepared herbal remedies.

Emma Farrant, secretary of the Register of Chinese Herbal Medicine, said 'The CNHC was formed to regulate complementary health practitioners on a voluntary basis, and as currently constituted, is not equipped for statutory regulation. 'The apparent decision to exclude acupuncturists from full regulation is bizarre and regrettable.'

Mike O'Farrell, chief executive of the British Acupuncture Council, said 'It is our belief that statutory regulation is in the best interest of public health.'

SOURCE



British Stats Agency savages PM Brown over immigration claims

The UK Statistics Agency has teeth and it is prepared to use them. The latest high-profile victim of the Agency is none other than Gordon Brown, who was taken to task yesterday for misleading voters with his selective use of statistics on immigration.

Last month, the UK Statistics Agency (UKSA) warned politicians that it would be watching them during the course of the election campaign and that any politician who misused official statistics could expect to feel the agency's wrath. While sceptics pooh-poohed the idea that a government body might actually be prepared to go head to head with senior politicians on this issue, the record of the UKSA over the last few weeks has been exemplary.

At issue is the vexed question of whether immigration has been going down under the current administration, and if so by how much. In a podcast last Friday, Brown claimed that his government had presided over a significant fall in net migration to the UK, from 237,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008 and provisionally 147,000 in 2009.

He was using these figures to claim that a new points system introduced in 2008 - determining which skilled workers from outside the EU can enter the country - had "radically changed the way we are dealing with immigration".

However, as critics and the UKSA were quick to point out, this was not entirely accurate, since the figure for 2009 was provisional, and also excluded asylum seekers and those who had overstayed their visas.

Sir Michael Scholar, the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, wrote to the Prime Minister (pdf) yesterday explaining the error of his ways in suitably school-masterly tones. He said: "I attach a note, prepared by the ONS, on these statistics. You will see that the note points out that the podcast did not use comparable data series for 2007 to 2009, and that it did not take account of the revised estimate of long-term net immigration for 2007."

He added: "The Statistics Authority hopes that in the political debate over the coming weeks all parties will be careful in their use of statistics to protect the integrity of official statistics."

A Downing Street spokesman said: "We accept that some of the statistics used in the Prime Minister's podcast were not strictly comparable and as a result were unclear." "Unclear" in this context is possibly a euphemism for misleading and wrong.

Lest it be thought that the UKSA is only concerned with errors by the government, Scholar is even-handed in his dishing out of reprimands. In February, he tangled with the Conservative Party, accusing them of misleading the public over crime figures.

At issue was the apparent preference by Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling for using police recorded statistics as a measure of crime in the UK, rather than the British Crime Survey. The latter is generally regarded by academics in this field as providing a more accurate and more rounded picture of what is happening to crime. ®

SOURCE



Scientific comment trumps Britain's libel laws

The science writer Simon Singh won the right yesterday to use the defence of fair comment, in a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal.

The strongly worded judgment by three of Britain’s most senior judges brings Dr Singh significantly closer to defeating the action brought against him by a group of chiropractors. The ruling also sets a precedent that could, in practice, make scientific criticism and debate exempt from claims of defamation by companies or organisations.

Dr Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) over an opinion piece he wrote for The Guardian in April 2008, suggesting that there was a lack of evidence for the claims some chiropractors make on treating certain childhood conditions, including colic and asthma.

The BCA alleged that Dr Singh had, in effect, accused its leaders of knowingly supporting bogus treatments.

In May last year, Mr Justice Eady, in a preliminary High Court ruling in the dispute, held that Dr Singh’s comments were factual assertions rather than expressions of opinion, which meant that he could not use the defence of fair comment.

However, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sedley ruled that Mr Justice Eady had “erred in his approach” last May and upheld Dr Singh’s appeal. Dr Singh described the ruling as “brilliant”, but said the action had cost £200,000 and two years of his time “just to define the meaning of a few words”. He added: “At last we’ve got a good decision. So instead of battling uphill we’re fighting with the wind behind us.”

The written judgment said that the original decision threatened to silence scientists or science journalists wishing to question claims made by companies or organisations. It said: “This litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic.”

Asking judges to rule on matters of scientific controversy would be to “invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth”, the judgment said.

In a statement issued after the ruling, the BCA expressed disappointment and said it was considering whether to appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn yesterday’s ruling. “This is not the end of the road ... Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged,” it said.

The BCA can now either appeal to the Supreme Court, proceed to trial and challenge Dr Singh’s defence of fair comment, or withdraw its case. A BCA spokesman said that board members would decide in the coming days.

The judgment was hailed as a victory by those campaigning for the reform of libel laws. Tracey Brown, director of Sense About Science, said: “In fighting this case, Simon has shone a light in a very dark and unpleasant corner of our legal world. It is clear from this ruling that senior members of the judiciary have added their weight to the need for libel reform.”

Last month Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said he was committed to a swift reform of libel laws, should Labour win the election. He said a stronger public interest defence was needed and expressed concern over “libel tourism”, in which British courts are being used by litigants from abroad to take advantage of rules that are seen as being favourable to claimants.

In England, the burden of proof rests on the defendant, who must establish that what has been reported is true. In the United States and most European countries, the party bringing the case must prove that it is false.

Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist, is being sued by an American company in the English courts, over his criticism of a heart implant trial and several US publications have said that they intend to withdraw from the British market.

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, said that yesterday’s “sensible” judgment was not a substitute for reform of the law. “It is no kind of justice for a scientist to spend £200,000 and two years of his life just to get halfway through a case,” he said. “The political parties must now all commit to reform of the law to free scientific speech and responsible journalism from the threat of penury.”

Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist at the University of Oxford, said: “This decision is a very significant step in the efforts to prevent the British libel laws being used to stifle legitimate criticism of unjustified claims about science and technology. The public will be the ultimate beneficiaries of Simon Singh’s brave campaign.”

SOURCE



The fat lady must learn to be a little thinner

We cannot justify subsidies for culture – the best will find a paying audience and the rest must go the wall

Can we just bypass the “is it art?” debate? It’s a giant, misshapen rollercoaster- type thingy, with a sort of sub-Eiffel Towery feel. It may or may not symbolise the twisted dreams of our country’s financial capital or Man’s doomed striving for the sky on his meandering path towards the grave. Or something. But let’s just call it art and be done.

The Anish Kapoor-designed, ArcelorMittal Orbital will soar above the London Olympic Park, dividing opinions, enraging taxi drivers and garnering nicknames. Personally, I love 84 per cent of it — the bit that was paid for by ArcelorMittal, the company owned by the steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal, which is spending up to £16 million on it. I am substantially less enamoured of the £3.1 million bit that we are paying for. Could it just be a few feet shorter with the company picking up all the bill?

We are deep in an era of big public works of art and expensive subsidies. The four arts councils for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland receive £521 million of taxpayers’ cash and £168 million from the lottery.

Total spending on culture in the UK amounts to 1 per cent of the NHS budget. But taxpayer-funded art, unlike brain surgery, is a luxury. Art is a glorious and welcome by-product of a healthy, capital-creating economy. Our economy is as crooked and twisted as Kapoor’s tower, in no shape to fund anything except recovery.

We know that cuts must come and that the public finances need more than flaccid pre-election political promises to kiss the deficit better. Every time that cuts are mooted, those who are about to be cut bleat: “Cut if you must, but don’t cut me!”

But it’s no use insisting that the arts are too small to count — unless we scrap old people or illness, the small bills need scrutinising as much as the big ones. We must count the pennies.

Those in favour of taxpayer-funded art base their argument on two pillars — the notion that a life without art is a dull, spiritually undernourished one, and the more topical argument that the creative economy is a thriving one that will help to pull the country out of its fiscal doldrums.

The problem with arts subsidies, however, is that it’s difficult to escape the notion that the poor are subsidising the leisure pursuits of the rich. At the Royal Opera House this week for Janácek’s The Cunning Little Vixen, it seemed utterly absurd that the well-heeled audience was subsidised in any way by the taxpayer. Spiritually nourished this crowd may have been; poor it was not. Yet the Royal Opera House is one of nine organisations receiving £5 million or more a year from the Arts Council — the others include the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the English National Ballet.

A survey by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport found that only 40 per cent of those in the lowest employment bracket attended an arts event in the past year compared with 84 per cent of those in the highest. As a report by the Adam Smith Institute points out, the DCMS has a pretty loose definition of art, including street arts and any “live music performance”.

The Arts Council is quick to respond to accusations of elitism by insisting that it works hard to bring art to the people. But if the people really want art, they can find it and they can pay for it. Voluntarily.

The DCMS announced yesterday a £50,000 grant for a charity called Culture24 to develop smartphone apps that allow people to find the nearest art. In the event that you must know, without delay, the whereabouts of the nearest Picasso, this is for you; £50,000 may be a tiny sum, but if there’s a market for this app, it will be made. If not, why is the Government supplying this middle-class toy?

So if we start with this ridiculous app and move on to scrap all government spending on art, what will happen? Will cultural Armageddon follow? Defenders of subsidy argue that it would mean the end of “innovative” art. But too often “innovative” is a euphemism for “rubbish”. A snobbishness pervades the cultural sector that dictates that popular art is less worthy than difficult or experimental stuff — small wonder that so many within the Establishment are terrified at what bald market forces might say about what they produce. If you can’t find the funding to put it on, and no one wants to see it, perhaps — just perhaps — it isn’t very good.

Excellence would survive. The Mountaintop, the surprise winner of Best New Play at this year’s Olivier Awards, received no subsidies. It succeeded because it was good.

The argument that the creative industries require subsidies because they contribute to the economy is a circular one. Taxpayers fund art that generates profit that pays tax to fund art. Eh? Besides, out of every £1 given by taxpayers to fund the arts 10p goes on administration. How many of the much cited economic powerhouses in the sector are subsidised and how many the product of unaided cultural entrepreneurs?

American art and culture thrive despite the lack of subsidy. The US is also the birthplace of crowdsourcing creatives — where those who are passionate about art meet on the internet and contribute to projects. One dollar makes you a shareholder on trustart.org. The difference is that the dollar is voluntary, not creamed off by the taxman.

Charities, private philanthropists and new forms of crowdsourced funding could fill the gap left by the taxpayer. Great art is no stranger to patronage — Leonardo da Vinci happily pocketed Medici gold, Shakespeare relied on the patronage of the court. The relationship is symbiotic — the artist is fed and the provider of capital gets reflected glory and status. It is only in the postwar era that arts patronage has been monopolised by the State. Let Mr Mittal have all the glory of mutant trumpet tower. And let the State keep its cash.

I can understand why people are passionate about this, and why special interest groups are so vocal. I would like to argue the case for some cash to be thrown at really important art — ie, the stuff I like. But that would mean funding opera, young writers and free museums but allowing ballet and most installation art to face the wolves of unfettered market forces — and that makes no sense at all. In the arts debate, head must rule heart and fiscal ruthlessness must prevail.

SOURCE





1 April, 2010

Forced reduction in working hours puts British junior doctors under greater stress

A cut in working hours under European law has not improved the health of junior doctors and has increased their rates of sickness, researchers say.

The length and frequency of sick leave among medical trainees more than doubled in the year after the European Working Time Directive was implemented, according to a study at a district general hospital.

Despite limiting medics to a 48-hour working week, leading doctors said that the new rota system increased the pressure on junior doctors by reducing the total number of staff on wards, and jeopardised opportunities for training.

One in four junior doctors working at Conquest Hospital, Hastings, took sick leave for a total of 179 days between August 2006 and July 2007. After the directive three out of four doctors were off sick for 312 days, researchers found.

Across the NHS more than 45,000 workers call in sick every day. Alastair Darling’s budget stressed that reducing by a third the 10.3 million working days lost a year could save £555 million.

Dr Hugh McIntyre, lead author of the study published in Clinical Medicine, the journal of the Royal College of Physicians, said that increased shift working and vacancies had “a detrimental effect on the welfare of doctors in training”. As such “the directive may have failed in its primary purpose: that of promoting the welfare of employees,” he said.

Andrew Goddard, director of the RCP’s Medical Workforce Unit, said that the study echoed concerns over sickness rates across England and Wales. “We are concerned that this has significant implications for patient safety and the quality of medical training in the UK.”

John Black, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, said: “This crude legislation has created a situation where doctors work variable shifts starting at different times of the day, where juniors are left exposed without the support of colleagues or the opportunity to train and has left them more exhausted and strung out than before.”

A recent British Medical Association survey found that four in ten doctors were working more intensely to cover understaffed rotas.

“There is also evidence that many doctors are working far in excess of their official hours,” a spokesman said. “It is, however, a testament to the professionalism of doctors that despite the increase in sick leave the study showed no adverse effects on patient care.”

SOURCE



England, the sick woman of Europe: Our poor cancer detection and bad diet mean Slovenian women live longer

Healthcare in England is so poor that women live longer in the former Communist state of Slovenia. A shocking report yesterday showed that female life expectancy here is also lower than in almost all Western European countries.

A woman born in England can expect to live to 81 years and 11 months, but her Slovenian counterpart will have an extra two months of life - even though the former Yugoslav republic spends far less on healthcare.

Over the past year we have slipped from 14th to 16th among EU countries, overtaken by both Slovenia and Malta. At the top is France, where women can expect to reach 85.

Experts said the difference can be put down to NHS failures to spot cancer and heart disease early enough - as well as the fact that the British diet is worse than in other countries.

The annual Health Profile of England from the Department of Health also revealed that deaths from chronic liver disease among women have climbed above the EU average, driven by the rise in binge drinking. Teenage pregnancy rates are the highest in western Europe - and obesity levels are the worst in the whole continent.

Worldwide, only the U.S., Mexico and New Zealand are fatter than us.

Infant mortality in England is also higher than the EU average, with 4.8 babies dying out of 1,000. This is much higher than both Slovenia and the Czech Republic, countries which only 20 years ago were behind the Iron Curtain.

But there was better news for English men - their life expectancy of 77 years and eight months is among the best in Europe, behind only Sweden, Italy, Cyprus and France.

The report also shows that suicide rates among English men and women are among the lowest in Europe, as are deaths from road accidents.

Even so, England has slipped from 14th out of 27 EU countries last year to 16th for female life expectancy - while Slovenia rose from 16th to 12th. We are lower than every other western European country except Portugal and Denmark - and more than two years lower than the western European average.

Much of this is because, as the report shows, female heart attack and cancer victims are more likely to die than in most western European countries. Premature mortality from circulatory diseases in England is 20.7 per 100,000 women under 65 - much higher than the Slovenian figure of 17.2 and the 12.4 recorded in France.

Premature mortality from cancer (62.9 per 100,000 women under 65) is higher than the EU average, and on a par with the former Soviet republic of Estonia.

Experts say the failings on cancer are down to the fact that patients and GPs are still failing to spot the signs quickly enough.

Mark Wallace, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said last night: 'It is shocking that England is falling behind other European countries - and even more that we are falling behind a country like Slovenia. We spend a vast amount on healthcare but we don't get the results that we should. 'The important thing is not simply having government pour money into the NHS - but making sure the money is spent properly and the service works. This is the most important measure of all: how long people actually live.'

Professor Steve Field, president of the Royal College of GPs, pointed out that although England had fallen down the life expectancy league for women, there had been very real improvements - it was just that other countries are improving more quickly.

Alcohol consumption in the UK has soared under Labour's increasingly liberal approach. It is a stark contrast to Europe, where drinking levels have been falling consistently for 25 years. After remaining steady for 20 years at around ten litres of pure alcohol per person per year, the UK figure began to rise in 1998, reaching 11.4 litres in 2003. That was before the introduction of 24-hour drinking laws, which critics say have vastly increased the problem of binge-drinking.

The death toll from drinking is now higher than the average in 15 European countries, says the Health Profile of England. Female life expectancy here has actually increased by 14 months over five years.

Professor Field said: 'This is good news for England - and even better news for Slovenia. Slovenia wasn't the poorest part of the old Yugoslavia, and the standard of living is excellent, so it is no surprise to me that it is doing very well.

'We have made progress on cutting deaths from cancer and heart disease, but we can do more. 'Britain might start to slip back if we don't do more to tackle young girls smoking, for example. We need to do more to diagnose cancer earlier, to persuade people to improve their diet by eating more fruit and veg, and alcohol is still causing societal problems.'

The Health Department said: 'Life expectancy in both the UK and Slovenia is at its highest- ever level and has been increasing over many years.

'Factors underlying increases in life expectancy are complex. Male and female mortality rates from the major causes of death, for example circulatory diseases and cancers, have been decreasing in England and greater declines in female mortality in recent years have narrowed the gap between England and other countries in the European Union.

'We remain committed to reducing health inequalities to narrow the gap between disadvantaged areas and the rest of England and we recognise there is still much more to do.'

Not everything is rosy for Slovenian women. They are more likely than the English to die of drink - and they have some of the highest suicide rates in Europe.

SOURCE



Cancer survivor refused breast reconstruction operation after NHS officials dismiss it as 'cosmetic surgery'

A cancer sufferer has condemned the NHS ' postcode lottery' after health chiefs refused to fund her breast reconstruction. Mother-of-four Patsy Parsons had a large section of her left breast removed when she was diagnosed two years ago and was told she was entitled to have it rebuilt free of charge.

But despite being recommended for a £5,000 bilateral breast augmentation operation - complex surgery which involves inserting implants and uplifting both breasts - by her consultant, the local primary care trust refused to fund it. It said her operation is 'low priority, routine' cosmetic surgery, which is paid for by the NHS only in exceptional circumstances.

Last night Mrs Parsons - who has four children aged between two and 14 with her labourer husband, Robert, 35 - said she was the victim of a 'postcode lottery'.

Guidelines state all women who undergo a mastectomy - a complete breast removal - should be given reconstruction by the state. However, it is at the discretion of PCTs whether to fund the surgery for women such as Mrs Parsons who have partial breast removals, or lumpectomies.

'I feel completely let down and insulted by the NHS,' said Mrs Parsons, a cafe owner. 'I'm not some celebrity model wanting a boob job to get more pictures in a glossy magazine - I need this to boost my self-esteem. 'Some PCTs are saying they will fund it and some are saying they won't. It's not fair, it should be one rule for everyone across the country. It's a postcode lottery.'

Mrs Parsons, 33, was diagnosed with breast cancer after finding a lump in her breast in April 2008. Doctors told her the cancer was aggressive and she needed a partial lumpectomy to remove the tumour and 16 lymph nodes to stop the disease spreading.

They reassured her that after her treatment, which included ten months of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, she would be entitled to reconstructive surgery. She also had a hysterectomy in June to improve her chances of beating the cancer for good.

Three months later Mrs Parsons, of Stoke- on-Trent, discussed reconstructive surgery at University of Staffordshire Hospital. A consultant recommended she undergo a bilateral breast augmentation and advised it would be paid for by the NHS. So she was devastated when, in December, Stoke-on-Trent PCT refused to fund her operation.

Mrs Parsons said her breasts are disfigured and she has been depressed since learning the operation would not happen. Although she appealed, the request was denied twice more.

Dr Zafar Iqbal, of Stoke- on-Trent PCT, said he was unable to comment on individual cases, but stressed they would be reconsidering Mrs Parsons' plight. 'The NHS is not in a position to meet all the demands placed upon it,' he said.

SOURCE



Britain has become a country that lives in fear of pervasive government regulations

When Joanna Ornowska took a series of elegant pictures of a pregnant friend, she proudly gave the digital snaps to Boots to be printed. But the store refused to process the 30 photographs - because they were too good. Workers said the portraits looked to be the work of an expert and did not believe the 25-year-old student took them.

Her model, eight months pregnant Malgorzata Kulinsha, 26, took the snaps on a memory stick to a Boots store in the Lower Precinct Shopping Centre, in Coventry, West Midlands, last week.

She was challenged by staff who accused her of breaking copyright laws, which make it illegal to print professional photographs without their owner's permission. Miss Kulinsha returned the following day with her friend's student ID and a signed letter proving she was studying for a degree in photography at Coventry University. But the Boots staff demanded a further letter written on headed paper.

Even when both women went to the store to prove that the photographer and model were happy to have the snaps printed, staff refused to back down and the pair were sent away empty-handed.

Miss Ornowska, who was born in Poland but moved to the UK three years ago, said: 'Boots said the photos looked so professional that they didn't believe I had taken them. It was crazy. 'They were demanding a letter on headed paper to prove I was the photographer, but I explained to them that I was a student and did not have my own photography business.

'They showed me a book of rules and regulations which said customers needed the photographer's permission to print pictures, but nowhere did it say anything about needing such a letter.

Ms Kulinsha planned to take the pictures back to show her family in Poland. 'The photos were special to me. I don't go home very often and I wanted something to bring back to my family'

'I could have developed the pictures myself in the darkroom. But I needed them done quickly and I couldn't see what right it was of theirs to say I couldn't have copies of my own work. Should I start taking bad photos to get them printed?'

Miss Kulinsha asked her to take the portraits to show her family at home in Poland, where they do not have access to e-mail. Her friend used a Canon digital camera to take a series of photos of the blonde cradling her bump against a dark backdrop in a studio at the university. But because of the delay caused by Boots, Miss Kulinsha caught a plane home without the snaps.

She said: 'I spent ages putting on my make-up and getting dressed up to have the pictures taken. But even with the model and the photographer stood in front of them, Boots still wouldn't print the photos for us.

'The photos were special to me. I don't go home very often and I wanted something to bring back to my family, but instead I felt I was being accused of stealing someone's work.'

Miss Ornowska's university tutor Jonathan Worth condemned the store's reaction. He said: 'Joanna has only been taking pictures for a year but she is an incredible talent. The shop has asked for proof she took them, which there is obviously no possible way of doing. It's ridiculous. 'I suppose it's a bit of a back-handed compliment to her, but it was very inconvenient.'

Austin Mitchell, Labour MP for Grimsby and a campaigner for photographers' rights, added: 'Boots are clearly barmy. It's not their responsibility to enforce copyright law and they are just being over-punctilious.'

Boots last night apologised for its 'over-cautious' staff. A spokesman said: 'We have a legal obligation to ensure that we do not infringe any copyright laws including those of professional photographers. 'In the case of Joanna our store staff were over-cautious and on reflection should have sold the pictures. We have refreshed all procedures in this particular store and the staff have been fully briefed regarding appropriate customer care.'

SOURCE



British PM's lies and chicanery on immigration are crying out to be exposed by the Conservatives

Six weeks before the probable date of the General Election, a major politician has at last dared to address the taboo subject of immigration in what was billed as a major speech. That politician is none other than Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Yet after he had conceded that the high rate of immigration rightly worries many people - it is one of the two concerns uppermost in people's minds, according to polls - Mr Brown's pay-off in a speech long on rhetoric but short on proposals was calculated to shut down debate. His preposterous claim was that New Labour, which has presided over a threefold increase in immigration since 1997, can be trusted to bring it under control.

He ended by launching an apparent attack on the Tories: 'The question is who has the best plan to control immigration - not who can appeal to our worst instincts of nationalism and xenophobia, but who can appeal to our best instincts of a fairer Britain for all decent hard-working families across our country.'

Talk about dishonest politics! Far from stirring up 'our worst instincts of nationalism and xenophobia', the Tories have barely opened their mouths on the subject of immigration. Whereas before the 2005 election they aired some anxieties - and were pilloried by New Labour and some in the Left-wing media for being racist - they have so far said precious little.

Mr Brown was in effect warning them to keep it that way. He fears that, if they were so minded, the Tories could make a devastating attack on this Government's abysmal record over immigration. in order to head them off, he unearths those old deadly charges of nationalism and xenophobia - sisters of the still more deadly charge of racism.

Meanwhile, we may be fairly certain that in constituencies in which Labour is challenged by the British National Party it will appear to sympathise with those affected by mass immigration.

On a national level, however, it will ludicrously claim to have the problem under control, and threaten to expose the Tories as racist should they dissent in any way. Isn't this all utterly depressing?

It remains impossible to have a mature and reasoned discussion about uncontrolled immigration without scurrilous allegations and false statistics flying around. Mr Brown may pretend it is no longer a taboo subject but that is exactly what he would like it to be.

To be fair to the Tories, they did respond quite robustly, pointing out in a press release some of the Government's many mistakes, none of which was mentioned by the Prime Minister in a speech free of the slightest word of apology or regret for the past.

New Labour distinguished itself by estimating that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come to Britain after their countries joined the European Union. in the event more than a million arrived. The Government could have limited the influx, as some EU countries did, but chose not to in the mistaken belief that there would only be a trickle.

There are reckoned to be up to 700,000 illegal immigrants in the UK, and the Home Office has lost the files of 40,000 of them. Countless rejected asylum sleeks have vanished. Stories of Home Office incompetence are legion.

Only yesterday we learnt how Alphonse Semo, a Congolese who served eight years here for a particularly nasty rape, was allowed by the authorities to marry an EU national while being held in jail prior to deportation. As a result, he may be entitled to stay here indefinitely. The pathetic response of Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, and possibly the most intellectually challenged person ever to have served in a British government (which is saying something), was to the effect that it was not for him to stand between a man and his intended bride.

New Labour's record over immigration is one of dazzling ineptitude. In part, of course, apparent errors may have been deliberate. A recently revealed document, as well as the testimony of a former Government adviser, suggest it may have encouraged immigration so as to boost its electoral support, the supposition being that first generation immigrants overwhelmingly vote Labour.

If ever there was an open goal for the Tories, this is it. But until now they have for the most part declined to press home their advantage, fearful of attracting the charge of racism, which Mr Brown half unsheathed yesterday, and believing that on this issue they already have the unspoken support of the vast majority of voters.

But surely a policy that has had such transformative effects on some communities, and has been marked by such incompetence and duplicity, cries out for exposure by the Tories. To his credit, Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, did respond to Mr Brown's speech by saying that bringing immigration under control would be a 'big job' for a future Conservative administration.

I hope that in coming weeks Mr Grayling and David Cameron and other Tories will develop these arguments. They must also point out that, to judge by Mr Brown's speech, the Government does not have any policies likely to curb immigration.

Moreover, not for the first time the Prime Minister has been caught fiddling the figures. In a recent podcast he claimed that statistics showed a steep reduction of 16,000 in the net level of immigration into Britain last year.

Now Mr Brown has been upbraided in surprisingly candid terms by no less a personage than Sir Michael Scholar, chair of the UK Statistics authority, for using two completely different sets of statistics which should not have been compared. As a result, he is likely to have underestimated the net level of immigration by more than 35,000, which means that the figure for 2009 was more than 20,000 higher than for the previous year. Contrary to his boast in yesterday's speech, there has been no decline at all. a policy characterised by incompetence, dishonesty and chicanery must not be a 'no go' area for the Tories.

Of course, they should stress that some immigration since 1997 has benefited the British economy, but the sheer uncontrolled enormity of the process has disquieted many people, including immigrants of longer standing. In some cases indigenous workers have been priced out of the jobs market, in others encouraged to remain on the dole as immigrants have filled low-paid jobs.

The Conservatives must not be frightened of saying as much, and no one with half a brain in his head will take seriously any allegations of racism which New Labour may unleash in order to cover up its record.

The issue is one of accountability. Citizens of whatever colour or background in what is supposed to be a democracy have a right to a say in their country's future.

If recent trends continue, the population of this already crowded country England - not Britain - could increase by 10 million within 20 years. Even with tighter controls on immigration, a substantial rise is certain.

Gordon Brown's speech yesterday was that of the oligarch who bends the truth out of a misguided belief that he knows what is best for us. It is the voice of New Labour's discredited ruling class. If the Tories spare him out of fear of bogus labels which no one any longer takes seriously, they will hardly deserve to be elected.

SOURCE



Academic says Scotland's schools are producing a generation of illiterate scientists

Scottish secondary schools are producing a generation of illiterate scientists unable to write clearly and accurately about their subject, according to a senior academic at the University of Glasgow. In an article for the journal of the Queen’s English Society – which champions the proper use of the English language – Emeritus Professor of Marine Biology Geoff Moore said both undergraduate and postgraduate papers were strewn with inaccurate punctuation, grammatical errors, and fundamental confusion between terms such as ‘proscribe’ and ‘prescribe’, and ‘affect’ and ‘effect’.

After marking papers at the University of Glasgow and London University for 36 years, Professor Moore said the problem lay in secondary schools – and he expects the poor standards to get worse. He wrote: “We must anticipate that more and more British secondary-school teachers – the contemporaries of those graduates we have encountered – will not have acquired a sufficient grounding in the English language in order to teach proper grammar, spelling and punctuation to their pupils effectively.”

Speaking to the Sunday Herald, Professor Moore said that some students’ written English made him “throw my hands up in horror”. He traced this back to the move away from writing essays in the teaching of science in schools.

“A lot of assessment is done by multiple choice, ticking boxes, one-word answers, and students don’t get the experience of writing essays as they did in the old days,” he said. “Coupled with the fact that they don’t get things corrected accurately by their teachers. You sometimes wonder if they even read a book any more.”

In science accurate English is an essential, but a dying art, Professor Moore believes. “It is a question of precision,” he said. “You have to be able to express yourself exactly. If you’re using the wrong word in the wrong context – there is a great deal of difference between a prescribed and a proscribed drug. It’s important that people learn to express themselves correctly.”

In response to Professor Moore’s criticisms, the biggest teaching union for secondary teachers in Scotland, the SSTA and the national body for science teachers, the Association for Science Education, agreed with many points.

SSTA general secretary Ann Ballinger said while she did not expect pupils or teachers to use the Queen’s English perfectly she admitted that multiple choice examinations had affected the standard of written English. “It does cause difficulties,” she said. “It is less easy to use language if you are not using it regularly. There certainly is an issue here. It reduces the amount of time and effort spent on the language. Clearly that is a problem.”

Steuart Cuthbert, ASE’s Scottish field officer, said that in his classroom experience, science teachers were discouraged from correcting the grammar and English of pupils. “Although I firmly believe that every teacher should be maintaining standards across the board, there was a thought in the mind of many people that my job was to teach chemistry or physics and have nothing to do with how that was expressed,” he said.

Mr Cuthbert offered hope for Professor Moore, however. The incoming shake-up of the schools – the Curriculum for Excellence – will make literacy and numeracy the responsibility of every teacher, regardless of subject. Mr Cuthbert said: “There is a sea change in attitude. We are now teachers of children rather than teachers of subject ... Because of the current developments this sort of criticism should be minimised in future.”

SOURCE



Take parents of unruly pupils to court, British schools told

The latest ruse to dodge responsibility for discipline

Schools are being told to take parents to court for failing to control their children as part of a new crackdown on bad behaviour.

Headteachers should make greater use of “parenting orders” to force mothers and fathers of the worst offenders to take more responsibility for their children, the Government said.

The civil court order requires them to attend counselling sessions and parenting classes – and can also set out strict rules on how families should deal with sons and daughters. This includes making sure children do not stay up late, ensuring they cannot get access to alcohol at home, getting them to school on time and making sure uniform rules are followed. Breach of the order can lead to prosecution and a £1,000 fine.

A report by Sir Alan Steer, former headteacher and the Government’s top advisor on behaviour, warned of a “lack of understanding” about the orders in schools. New guidance issued to heads will say that parents failing to play their part in keeping children under control “need to know that the issuing of a parenting order is a possible action by the school”.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, said: “For heads to have the power to take court action against parents whose children continue to behave badly, disrupt lessons and impact on other pupils is a vital step in the right direction.”

Parents are already being asked to sign Home School Agreements – non-legal contracts setting out minimum standards of behaviour, attendance, uniform and homework – before the start of term. They are expected to sign them every 12 months. Most schools already have agreements but under new legislation it will be a legal requirement on every state primary and secondariy to issue them. Sir Alan’s report suggested that schools should apply for parenting orders when families repeatedly fail to abide by rules set out on the agreements.

Speaking at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers annual conference on Wednesday, Mr Balls said: “I want to see more schools using parenting orders when Home School Agreements fail. It is time for parents to be held accountable for their child’s behaviour.”

Parenting orders have been available to schools and local councils for six years, but only 2,000 have been issued for truancy and none have been handed out for behaviour. Mr Balls said heads had “not felt sufficiently confident legally that the courts would support them if they were apply for a parenting order for behaviour”, but insisted that new guidance handed to schools would improve their awareness of the process.

The comments come after research by the ATL found that a quarter of teachers had been forced to deal with a violent pupil in the current academic year. Many teachers blamed parents for failing to act as good “role models” for their children. More than a third of staff also said they had faced abuse from mothers and fathers themselves, often after attempting to discipline their child.

One teacher from a state primary in Essex said: “I have had a threat to my life from a parent because I told a child to complete their homework during part of their ‘golden time’. “It was threatened that they and their family would kill me when I came to or from school.”

A female secondary school teacher said: “I have been trapped in an office by a father and older brother of a student who were angry that he'd had his gold trainers confiscated until the end of the day.”

SOURCE



British politicians defend climate fraudsters

They refused to see the evidence in front of their eyes

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."

The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit. The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals. One that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.

The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of man-made climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated or even made up altogether.

The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to "the serious implications for U.K. science."

SOURCE



More on the new paternalism: "The basic idea is of course exactly like school. Then it was yes, Double Maths isn’t fun now but we’re adults and you’re children and yes, we know that it will do you good in the future. The new paternalism is making the same logical argument, just applying it to smoking, drinking, pensions savings and whatever else the self-proclaimed adults insist we children should be doing. As Glen points out though, there’s a horrible logical problem at the heart of such thinking. Those paternalists know what we should be doing by their standards: that’s not the new part of it all. The new is that they claim to know what we should be doing by our standards. That is, that their prescriptions help us to achieve our goals by imposing methods which we’re simply too dim to think up for ourselves.”







Stories from a very strange place. Not even Kafka could have envisaged a country where only 2.5% of the police force are actually available to assist the public -- but that is modern Britain. Yes: 2.5%, not 25%.


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


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?