Eye on Britain
Monday, June 30, 2008
'I despise Islamism' says award winning British author
He is known for his polished prose, critically acclaimed novels -and for keeping a decidedly low profile. But today the Booker-winning novelist Ian McEwan found himself at the centre of an uncharacteristic row. During an interview with an Italian newspaper, the author launched a stinging attack on Islamism, saying he despised it and that it wanted 'to create a society that I detest.'
The fiercely private Mr McEwan, whose books include On Chesil Beach and Atonement which was recently made into a film starring Keira Knightley, was prompted to make the comments in defence of his friend Martin Amis. 'A dear friend had been called a racist,' he said. 'As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist. "This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist. 'And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on - we know it well.
He went on: 'When you ask a novelist or a poet about his vision regarding an aspect of the world, you don't get the response of a politician or a sociologist, but even if you don't like what he says you have to accept it, you can't react with defamation. 'Martin is not a racist, and neither am I.'
Mr McEwan made his comments to Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, and it is even possible he could now be investigated by police for a hate crime.
The novelist had spoken on the topic before and last year told The New York Times 'All religions make very big claims about the world, and it should be possible in an open society to dispute them. 'It should be possible to say, "I find some ideas in Islam questionable" without being called a racist.'
Mr McEwan's comments, however, are nowhere near as strong as those made by Martin Amis. 'The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order', he has said and in an open letter to columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim 'Islamism, in most of its manifestations, not only wants to kill me - it wants to kill you.'
Source
A different climate meeting
The Warmists are always having conferences and meetings. But others can have them too. A report:
Yesterday (25 June) I attended a lunchtime seminar in Westminster, organised by the Centre for Policy Studies, on climate change and the case against CO2 as the driver of global temperatures. Chaired by Nigel Lawson, there were several other peers in attendance, and more Ph.Ds and professors than you could shake a stick at. The speaker was Dr Fred Singer, the 84-year-old American climate scientist and author of 'Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years' and one of the founders of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), set up to examine all the evidence on the subject, including that ignored by the politicised IPCC.
The London seminar was the last in a series that Dr Singer had held around Europe, where he had also had a meeting with the EU Environment Commissioner. Apparently, after listening to Dr Singer's views, the commissioner replied that they were very interesting but he would have to seek the views of scientists!
Dr Singer gave a presentation on the NIPCC paper 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate' (http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf), of which he was the editor. He showed that the most damning evidence against man-made climate change was the 'fingerprint' method of comparing what the climate models predict should be happening to atmospheric temperatures and what measurements show actually is happening - and they are totally different.
There was a question and answer session after the presentation. In response to a question from the Bishop of Chester about what was driving the whole climate change scare, Dr Singer described the financial beneficiaries (activists, scientists, industrial organisations) and ideological factors. CO2 control was also the perfect vehicle for promoting world government.
One of the issues stressed by Dr Singer was that climate policies are negatively impacting energy policies, making energy much more expensive. In his view we need to be seeking economic growth throughout the world, which can only be achieved with access to relatively cheap energy. Since the end of the current interglacial cannot be too far away, we need to be wealthy enough to have the resources to adapt to the potentially catastrophic effects of the severe cooling that is inevitable within the next few thousand years.
Dr Singer believes that continued cooling over the next ten years, plus the economic consequences of the sharp increase in energy prices that is now occurring, will be needed to cause a break in the ranks of politicians towards trying to control CO2. More recognised academics need to speak out on the issue to keep the pressure up. All in all, a very interesting meeting.
There is another issue that came up in the Q&A session that we need to take seriously. There was a question from Nick Riley, who described himself as a geologist and zoologist, about the 'acidification' of the oceans from extra CO2. Dr Singer replied that the oceans were not acidifying but they were becoming less alkaline. Riley mentioned that there had been an acidification event some 55 million years ago (he didn't say what caused it) that took some 100,000 years for the oceans to recover from.
I have done a quick Google search this morning and found this paper by Riley: www.all-energy.co.uk/UserFiles/File/25Riley.pdf which shows that he is promoting carbon sequestration and is either a true believer or is making money from CO2 alarmism.
I think I may have mentioned before that I can see the Greens and their fellow travellers changing tack once it becomes irrefutable that CO2 is not driving temperatures, and ocean acidification is likely to be their next scare. It strikes me that, with current atmospheric CO2 levels at a very low level in terms of geological time, the likelihood of the oceans becoming acidic must be remote if they did not do so when atmospheric levels were much higher. If the event Riley referred to is true, it clearly didn't kill all life in the oceans, and corals date back some 250 million years and they obviously survived. I think we need to have the answers ready on this, though, for when the Greens say we must reduce CO2 emissions, even if they don't affect climate after all.
Source
Attack on British university standards
Universities told to favour poor schools
Universities are to be told to give preferential treatment to pupils from poorly performing state schools in a move that is likely to anger independent schools. The government is to endorse proposals that admissions staff should tailor offers to candidates according to the quality of school they attended. The report, commissioned by Gordon Brown, is intended to devise ways of increasing the number of pupils from the poorest families reaching top universities. Only 29% of university students come from the poorest socio-economic groups. At Oxford and Cambridge the percentage is even lower – 9.8% and 11.8% respectively.
Ed Balls, the schools secretary, and John Denham, the universities secretary, are expected to give public backing to the report from the National Council for Educational Excellence on Tuesday. It will say that universities should take into account all available “contextual data” about the performance of a school’s A-level candidates and the number of pupils it sends to university.
The effect is likely to be an increase in the number of pupils from poor schools who are required to get lower A-level grades than those from grammar or independent schools. Last month freedom of information requests by The Sunday Times showed seven top universities had already introduced versions of such schemes.
The report will argue that pupils from the poorest families are being let down by the state school system. It will present new research showing that 11-year-olds from poor families with the best test results are only half as likely as those from better-off households still to be high achievers when they reach the age of 14. It will be presented to Balls and Denham on Tuesday by Steve Smith, the vice-chancellor of Exeter University, Alison Richard, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, and Les Ebdon, the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire University. The council will present its findings to Brown in the autumn.
“There is a massive gap in your chances of going on to higher education depending on what socio-economic group you belong [to] and there has hardly been any improvement in the situation. That is what we have to put right,” said Smith, who has drawn up the report. He has been helped by Sir Michael Barber, a senior Downing Street aide under Tony Blair.
Independent schools will also regard as hostile a recommendation for a delay until at least 2012 before universities make offers based on the new A* grade at A-level. The grade, which will be awarded for the first time in 2010, was intended to help universities distinguish between the surging numbers of students gaining three As. Last year more than a quarter of A-level exams taken were given an A grade. Cambridge turns away more than 5,000 candidates a year with three As and is one of the universities planning to use the A* in its offers.
Alan Smithers, professor of education at Buckinghamshire University, was critical of the proposals. He said: “Discrimination of that kind will undoubtedly weaken our universities and make it harder for them to compete in the world league. It introduces institutional unfairness.” Anthony Seldon, master of Wellington college, said: “I think there’s always danger where you artificially prop up a system. The real effort ought to be to bring up the standard of state schools to independent schools.”
Source
The latest craziness in Brtain's socialized medicine
Nurses to take charge of surgeries
The government will take on the medical profession this week by pressing ahead with reforms that will see greater power being transferred from doctors to nurses. Alan Johnson, the health secretary, is expected to follow up plans to introduce at least 150 large health centres, known as polyclinics, by announcing an expansion of surgeries run by nurses. The centres will replace lone GPs, many of whom the government believes are unable to provide evening surgeries or other modern patient services.
This is likely to escalate a row between the government and doctors over reform. Lord Darzi, the health minister in charge of a review of the National Health Service, has accused some doctors of being “laggards” and protecting their “professional boundaries”. Darzi has already said he wants to see nurses doing minor surgery in hospitals. This week he is expected to lay out proposals for more nurses to set up surgeries. They will be encouraged to establish not-for-profit firms to run the practices by being allowed to opt out of the NHS without losing pension rights.
Darzi will also outline plans to publish the death rates of hospital doctors so patients can compare their chance of survival according to who treats them. Death rates at NHS hospitals are available for heart surgery. Success rates for about 50 other conditions are expected to be published on the internet to allow patients to shop around.
Patients are also expected to be given personal health budgets and will decide how the money is spent on treating long-term conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease.
An “NHS constitution” will set out patients’ rights and responsibilities, including the right to be told why they have been denied a drug a doctor recommends.
Johnson has admitted that access to NHS drugs is a lottery and will order the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the government’s rationing watchdog, to assess drugs more quickly. He said: “What we have heard from patients is that one of their major concerns is the perceived ‘postcode lottery’ in access to drugs. “The draft constitution will address this by making it explicit that patients have the right to Nice-approved drugs and treatment if clinically appropriate. “We will also speed up the national process for appraising new drugs. If a decision is then taken not to fund a drug then your local NHS will have to explain that decision to you.”
Hamish Meldrum, chair of the British Medical Association, suggested the government’s plans for nurses to run surgeries would have limited impact because patients would choose to be treated by doctors. Meldrum said: “There are obviously certain things that only doctors can do. “It is all very well saying patients should have choice about where they are treated but there are certain treatments nurses cannot do, so there will be a limited choice. Patients usually prefer to see doctors.”
Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said increasing numbers of nurses would run local surgeries in future. Carter added: “We never want to get into confrontations over territory. However, good progressive doctors recognise there are roles for nurses who do highly complex work.”
Source
Alcohol shaping women's bodies
I doubt that the effect described is due to alcohol alone. Being overweight generally would seem a likely factor and that need not be due to drinking
As women catch up with men in the drinking stakes, their waistlines are also catching up with the beer belly, according to health experts. An English dietitian has given the apple-shaped body type a new name - the wineglass - due to the love of the drink. Jacqui Lowdon, from the British Dietetic Association, said it was the result of image-conscious women exercising to keep fit, and yet neglecting to cut back their alcohol intake.
The shape is characterised by weight accumulating in the middle, creating a larger upper body and a thinner lower half. Traditionally seen in women after menopause, this barrel-torso physique is now becoming common in the under 30s. Singers Britney Spears, Charlotte Church and Fergie are seen as examples of this emerging body type.
International health and longevity expert Dr John Tickell cited extended drinking hours contributed to the growing number of "wineglass" figures. "The social pressures on the way we eat and drink are just so different to what they were 50 years ago," Dr Tickell said. "What happens now is that most of the kids don't go out until 10 or 11 or midnight, and they stay out drinking in clubs all night."
Dr Tickell explained that our sedentary lifestyles and intake of excess calories through alcoholic drinks such as wine and sweet alcopops contributed to the skinny-leg, big-belly look. "The evolution of the wineglass shape for women, with the thinner legs, is because we don't use our legs," he said. "We don't play netball, we don't climb stairs - we don't do anything." "This is not a genetic thing; it's a lifestyle thing, the accumulation of excess calories you consume starts to go around the tummy."
Dr Tickell said it was a worrying trend and could lead to a number of health problems. "It was sort of OK for a man to look like an apple but now it's becoming OK for a woman to look like an apple or a wineglass, which is terribly unhealthy. "Wineglass equals high-risk diabetes, breast cancer and bowel cancer and all the other cancers."
Nadia Jacobi, 23, a regular at the gym, said she was aware of the emerging trend. "If you go out and drink all weekend there is no point to doing all the gym training," she said. "If you look on the back of a wine bottle you can see how many carbs the wine has that contribute to how many calories there are and I don't think a lot of people are aware of that."
Source
Anglican schism: "The Anglican Church faces what is in effect a schism this weekend after the declaration last night of conservative evangelicals to create a "church within a church". The new body, called the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, will have its own bishops, clergy and theological colleges. Details of the fellowship were announced in Jerusalem last night at a summit of conservative Anglicans, the Global Anglican Future Conference. It follows a protracted battle within the church over gay clergy. Many evangelicals were outraged when it was revealed this month that the civil partnership of two gay priests had been blessed in a London church with a traditional wedding liturgy... The new fellowship will return to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 39 articles of religion, train its own priests and insist on more orthodox practices in its churches."
He is known for his polished prose, critically acclaimed novels -and for keeping a decidedly low profile. But today the Booker-winning novelist Ian McEwan found himself at the centre of an uncharacteristic row. During an interview with an Italian newspaper, the author launched a stinging attack on Islamism, saying he despised it and that it wanted 'to create a society that I detest.'
The fiercely private Mr McEwan, whose books include On Chesil Beach and Atonement which was recently made into a film starring Keira Knightley, was prompted to make the comments in defence of his friend Martin Amis. 'A dear friend had been called a racist,' he said. 'As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist. "This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist. 'And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on - we know it well.
He went on: 'When you ask a novelist or a poet about his vision regarding an aspect of the world, you don't get the response of a politician or a sociologist, but even if you don't like what he says you have to accept it, you can't react with defamation. 'Martin is not a racist, and neither am I.'
Mr McEwan made his comments to Guido Santevecchi, a London correspondent for Corriere della Sera, and it is even possible he could now be investigated by police for a hate crime.
The novelist had spoken on the topic before and last year told The New York Times 'All religions make very big claims about the world, and it should be possible in an open society to dispute them. 'It should be possible to say, "I find some ideas in Islam questionable" without being called a racist.'
Mr McEwan's comments, however, are nowhere near as strong as those made by Martin Amis. 'The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order', he has said and in an open letter to columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim 'Islamism, in most of its manifestations, not only wants to kill me - it wants to kill you.'
Source
A different climate meeting
The Warmists are always having conferences and meetings. But others can have them too. A report:
Yesterday (25 June) I attended a lunchtime seminar in Westminster, organised by the Centre for Policy Studies, on climate change and the case against CO2 as the driver of global temperatures. Chaired by Nigel Lawson, there were several other peers in attendance, and more Ph.Ds and professors than you could shake a stick at. The speaker was Dr Fred Singer, the 84-year-old American climate scientist and author of 'Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years' and one of the founders of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), set up to examine all the evidence on the subject, including that ignored by the politicised IPCC.
The London seminar was the last in a series that Dr Singer had held around Europe, where he had also had a meeting with the EU Environment Commissioner. Apparently, after listening to Dr Singer's views, the commissioner replied that they were very interesting but he would have to seek the views of scientists!
Dr Singer gave a presentation on the NIPCC paper 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate' (http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf), of which he was the editor. He showed that the most damning evidence against man-made climate change was the 'fingerprint' method of comparing what the climate models predict should be happening to atmospheric temperatures and what measurements show actually is happening - and they are totally different.
There was a question and answer session after the presentation. In response to a question from the Bishop of Chester about what was driving the whole climate change scare, Dr Singer described the financial beneficiaries (activists, scientists, industrial organisations) and ideological factors. CO2 control was also the perfect vehicle for promoting world government.
One of the issues stressed by Dr Singer was that climate policies are negatively impacting energy policies, making energy much more expensive. In his view we need to be seeking economic growth throughout the world, which can only be achieved with access to relatively cheap energy. Since the end of the current interglacial cannot be too far away, we need to be wealthy enough to have the resources to adapt to the potentially catastrophic effects of the severe cooling that is inevitable within the next few thousand years.
Dr Singer believes that continued cooling over the next ten years, plus the economic consequences of the sharp increase in energy prices that is now occurring, will be needed to cause a break in the ranks of politicians towards trying to control CO2. More recognised academics need to speak out on the issue to keep the pressure up. All in all, a very interesting meeting.
There is another issue that came up in the Q&A session that we need to take seriously. There was a question from Nick Riley, who described himself as a geologist and zoologist, about the 'acidification' of the oceans from extra CO2. Dr Singer replied that the oceans were not acidifying but they were becoming less alkaline. Riley mentioned that there had been an acidification event some 55 million years ago (he didn't say what caused it) that took some 100,000 years for the oceans to recover from.
I have done a quick Google search this morning and found this paper by Riley: www.all-energy.co.uk/UserFiles/File/25Riley.pdf which shows that he is promoting carbon sequestration and is either a true believer or is making money from CO2 alarmism.
I think I may have mentioned before that I can see the Greens and their fellow travellers changing tack once it becomes irrefutable that CO2 is not driving temperatures, and ocean acidification is likely to be their next scare. It strikes me that, with current atmospheric CO2 levels at a very low level in terms of geological time, the likelihood of the oceans becoming acidic must be remote if they did not do so when atmospheric levels were much higher. If the event Riley referred to is true, it clearly didn't kill all life in the oceans, and corals date back some 250 million years and they obviously survived. I think we need to have the answers ready on this, though, for when the Greens say we must reduce CO2 emissions, even if they don't affect climate after all.
Source
Attack on British university standards
Universities told to favour poor schools
Universities are to be told to give preferential treatment to pupils from poorly performing state schools in a move that is likely to anger independent schools. The government is to endorse proposals that admissions staff should tailor offers to candidates according to the quality of school they attended. The report, commissioned by Gordon Brown, is intended to devise ways of increasing the number of pupils from the poorest families reaching top universities. Only 29% of university students come from the poorest socio-economic groups. At Oxford and Cambridge the percentage is even lower – 9.8% and 11.8% respectively.
Ed Balls, the schools secretary, and John Denham, the universities secretary, are expected to give public backing to the report from the National Council for Educational Excellence on Tuesday. It will say that universities should take into account all available “contextual data” about the performance of a school’s A-level candidates and the number of pupils it sends to university.
The effect is likely to be an increase in the number of pupils from poor schools who are required to get lower A-level grades than those from grammar or independent schools. Last month freedom of information requests by The Sunday Times showed seven top universities had already introduced versions of such schemes.
The report will argue that pupils from the poorest families are being let down by the state school system. It will present new research showing that 11-year-olds from poor families with the best test results are only half as likely as those from better-off households still to be high achievers when they reach the age of 14. It will be presented to Balls and Denham on Tuesday by Steve Smith, the vice-chancellor of Exeter University, Alison Richard, the vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, and Les Ebdon, the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire University. The council will present its findings to Brown in the autumn.
“There is a massive gap in your chances of going on to higher education depending on what socio-economic group you belong [to] and there has hardly been any improvement in the situation. That is what we have to put right,” said Smith, who has drawn up the report. He has been helped by Sir Michael Barber, a senior Downing Street aide under Tony Blair.
Independent schools will also regard as hostile a recommendation for a delay until at least 2012 before universities make offers based on the new A* grade at A-level. The grade, which will be awarded for the first time in 2010, was intended to help universities distinguish between the surging numbers of students gaining three As. Last year more than a quarter of A-level exams taken were given an A grade. Cambridge turns away more than 5,000 candidates a year with three As and is one of the universities planning to use the A* in its offers.
Alan Smithers, professor of education at Buckinghamshire University, was critical of the proposals. He said: “Discrimination of that kind will undoubtedly weaken our universities and make it harder for them to compete in the world league. It introduces institutional unfairness.” Anthony Seldon, master of Wellington college, said: “I think there’s always danger where you artificially prop up a system. The real effort ought to be to bring up the standard of state schools to independent schools.”
Source
The latest craziness in Brtain's socialized medicine
Nurses to take charge of surgeries
The government will take on the medical profession this week by pressing ahead with reforms that will see greater power being transferred from doctors to nurses. Alan Johnson, the health secretary, is expected to follow up plans to introduce at least 150 large health centres, known as polyclinics, by announcing an expansion of surgeries run by nurses. The centres will replace lone GPs, many of whom the government believes are unable to provide evening surgeries or other modern patient services.
This is likely to escalate a row between the government and doctors over reform. Lord Darzi, the health minister in charge of a review of the National Health Service, has accused some doctors of being “laggards” and protecting their “professional boundaries”. Darzi has already said he wants to see nurses doing minor surgery in hospitals. This week he is expected to lay out proposals for more nurses to set up surgeries. They will be encouraged to establish not-for-profit firms to run the practices by being allowed to opt out of the NHS without losing pension rights.
Darzi will also outline plans to publish the death rates of hospital doctors so patients can compare their chance of survival according to who treats them. Death rates at NHS hospitals are available for heart surgery. Success rates for about 50 other conditions are expected to be published on the internet to allow patients to shop around.
Patients are also expected to be given personal health budgets and will decide how the money is spent on treating long-term conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease.
An “NHS constitution” will set out patients’ rights and responsibilities, including the right to be told why they have been denied a drug a doctor recommends.
Johnson has admitted that access to NHS drugs is a lottery and will order the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the government’s rationing watchdog, to assess drugs more quickly. He said: “What we have heard from patients is that one of their major concerns is the perceived ‘postcode lottery’ in access to drugs. “The draft constitution will address this by making it explicit that patients have the right to Nice-approved drugs and treatment if clinically appropriate. “We will also speed up the national process for appraising new drugs. If a decision is then taken not to fund a drug then your local NHS will have to explain that decision to you.”
Hamish Meldrum, chair of the British Medical Association, suggested the government’s plans for nurses to run surgeries would have limited impact because patients would choose to be treated by doctors. Meldrum said: “There are obviously certain things that only doctors can do. “It is all very well saying patients should have choice about where they are treated but there are certain treatments nurses cannot do, so there will be a limited choice. Patients usually prefer to see doctors.”
Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said increasing numbers of nurses would run local surgeries in future. Carter added: “We never want to get into confrontations over territory. However, good progressive doctors recognise there are roles for nurses who do highly complex work.”
Source
Alcohol shaping women's bodies
I doubt that the effect described is due to alcohol alone. Being overweight generally would seem a likely factor and that need not be due to drinking
As women catch up with men in the drinking stakes, their waistlines are also catching up with the beer belly, according to health experts. An English dietitian has given the apple-shaped body type a new name - the wineglass - due to the love of the drink. Jacqui Lowdon, from the British Dietetic Association, said it was the result of image-conscious women exercising to keep fit, and yet neglecting to cut back their alcohol intake.
The shape is characterised by weight accumulating in the middle, creating a larger upper body and a thinner lower half. Traditionally seen in women after menopause, this barrel-torso physique is now becoming common in the under 30s. Singers Britney Spears, Charlotte Church and Fergie are seen as examples of this emerging body type.
International health and longevity expert Dr John Tickell cited extended drinking hours contributed to the growing number of "wineglass" figures. "The social pressures on the way we eat and drink are just so different to what they were 50 years ago," Dr Tickell said. "What happens now is that most of the kids don't go out until 10 or 11 or midnight, and they stay out drinking in clubs all night."
Dr Tickell explained that our sedentary lifestyles and intake of excess calories through alcoholic drinks such as wine and sweet alcopops contributed to the skinny-leg, big-belly look. "The evolution of the wineglass shape for women, with the thinner legs, is because we don't use our legs," he said. "We don't play netball, we don't climb stairs - we don't do anything." "This is not a genetic thing; it's a lifestyle thing, the accumulation of excess calories you consume starts to go around the tummy."
Dr Tickell said it was a worrying trend and could lead to a number of health problems. "It was sort of OK for a man to look like an apple but now it's becoming OK for a woman to look like an apple or a wineglass, which is terribly unhealthy. "Wineglass equals high-risk diabetes, breast cancer and bowel cancer and all the other cancers."
Nadia Jacobi, 23, a regular at the gym, said she was aware of the emerging trend. "If you go out and drink all weekend there is no point to doing all the gym training," she said. "If you look on the back of a wine bottle you can see how many carbs the wine has that contribute to how many calories there are and I don't think a lot of people are aware of that."
Source
Anglican schism: "The Anglican Church faces what is in effect a schism this weekend after the declaration last night of conservative evangelicals to create a "church within a church". The new body, called the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, will have its own bishops, clergy and theological colleges. Details of the fellowship were announced in Jerusalem last night at a summit of conservative Anglicans, the Global Anglican Future Conference. It follows a protracted battle within the church over gay clergy. Many evangelicals were outraged when it was revealed this month that the civil partnership of two gay priests had been blessed in a London church with a traditional wedding liturgy... The new fellowship will return to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the 39 articles of religion, train its own priests and insist on more orthodox practices in its churches."
Sunday, June 29, 2008
British government schools killing off literature
A shake-up of GCSE [middle school] English will allow pupils to study travel brochures or biographies rather than novels, the qualifications regulator announced yesterday.
Exams in English, maths, and information and communication technology (ICT) will undergo a transformation in two years' time. The draft syllabuses were released yesterday by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), which is seeking feedback from the public.
Pupils will be able to choose between three English GCSEs, rather than the traditional two. As well as English and English literature, there will be a new qualification in English language.
Although this includes assessment of reading, pupils will be able to pass the exam without studying any plays, poetry or classic novels.
The QCA says: "The aim is to develop students' understanding of language use in the real world, through engaging with and evaluating material that is relevant to their own development as speakers, listeners, readers and writers."
It describes the qualification as an "attractive stand-alone course" for students who have English as a second language. This reflects developments in the school population, and indicates that the exam system is changing to embrace the influx of immigrant families in some areas.
The QCA guidance adds that the English language exam would be suitable for "those needing a language qualification at this level but who are not required to fulfil the range of reading stipulated [in English literature]". It adds: "It provides an opportunity for students to extend their own skills as producers of spoken and written language in contexts that are both practical and challenging."
Source
BRITISH LABOUR PARTY WIPED OUT IN HENLEY BY-ELECTION
Gordon Brown suffered the humiliation on Friday of Labour crashing to fifth place in the Henley by-election on his first anniversary as prime minister. The unprecedented result, which placed the government behind the Green party and the far-right British National Party, is likely to raise further questions about Mr Brown's leadership and increase calls for change from Labour MPs.
The Conservatives comfortably held one of their safer seats, vacated by Boris Johnson when he left parliament to serve as London Mayor. John Howell, the Tory candidate, secured a majority of 10,116, increasing the Tory share of the vote from 53.5 per cent in 2005 to 57.5 per cent. In his acceptance speech he said "the British public has sent a message to Gordon Brown to 'get off our backs, stop the endless tax rises and help us cope with the rising cost of living'".
Labour expectations were extremely low ahead of the vote. But even the most pessimistic Labour MPs will be shocked that the governing party won little more than 1,000 votes, lost its 500 pounds deposit and trailed two parties with no representation in parliament.
Martin Salter, the Labour MP leading their campaign in Henley, described it as a "grim result" in which the government "reaped the whirlwind" of voter dismay over the credit crunch and faltering economy. "It is very difficult to divine a clear message for Gordon Brown in a seat in which we had no chance at all," he said.
Labour's share of the vote slumped from 14.8 per cent in 2005 to about 3 per cent - well short of the 5 per cent share required to keep their deposit. Lord Renard, the Liberal Democrat chief executive, said it was "abject humiliation" for Mr Brown.
More here
And below is the high-tax "Green" mentality that lost the election:
GORDON Brown was set to signal today he is prepared to take on public opinion over green taxes. The Prime Minister was to insist "real leadership" is necessary to reduce Britain's carbon footprint.
Announcing a 100 billion pound programme to slash greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Brown was due to say UK lifestyles must change over the next decade. The Government has been under pressure over green incentives such as tax hikes for owners of the most polluting, gas-guzzling vehicles.
But, at a lower carbon economy summit in London today, Mr Brown was to say a low carbon society will not emerge from a "business as usual" approach. "It will require real leadership from government - being prepared to make hard decisions on planning or on tax, for example, rather than tacking and changing according to the polls. It will require an investment programme of around 100 billion over the next 12 years. "It will involve new forms of economic activity and social organisation. "It will mean new kinds of consumer behaviour and lifestyles. "And it will demand creativity, innovation and entrepreneurialism throughout our economy and our society."
Thousands of new wind turbines could be built across the UK over the coming decade as part of the radical blueprint being unveiled today. Business Secretary John Hutton acknowledged the "green" power plants would cost more and take up more land than conventional electricity generation, but said Britain had "no choice" about moving to lower-carbon energy.
Source
The Pill ‘has had its day as an effective contraceptive’
An IUD revival? The Dalkon shield must have been forgotten
The Pill is “outdated” and leading to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions because so few women take it correctly, a leading academic has said. Nearly one in 12 women who takes the Pill stands to become pregnant each year by missing occasional tablets, James Trussell, of Princeton University, New Jersey, says.
Increasing access to emergency contraception - the “morning after” pill - would also not have a significant effect on rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortions, he will tell the British Pregnancy Advisory Service conference in London today.
Speakers at the conference on the future of abortion will say that women should use longer-lasting methods such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices (IUDs) that can be “fitted and forgotten”, but later removed if a woman wants a baby.
The Government wants to encourage more women to use long-acting methods, and guidance has suggested that if 7 per cent of women currently using the Pill switched to a long-acting method, then it would prevent 73,000 unintended pregnancies, saving the NHS 100 million a year.
But Professor Trussell said that few GPs offered long-acting reversible contraceptives or were trained at fitting them, so most women ended up using the Pill by default. “The Pill is an outdated method because it does not work well enough,” he added. “It is very difficult for ordinary women to take a pill every single day. The beauty of the implant or the IUD is that you can forget about them.”
Studies suggest that women miss three times as many pills as they commonly say they do. Computerised pill packs were used to show that although about half of women said they did not miss any pills, fewer than a third actually did.
Source
A shake-up of GCSE [middle school] English will allow pupils to study travel brochures or biographies rather than novels, the qualifications regulator announced yesterday.
Exams in English, maths, and information and communication technology (ICT) will undergo a transformation in two years' time. The draft syllabuses were released yesterday by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), which is seeking feedback from the public.
Pupils will be able to choose between three English GCSEs, rather than the traditional two. As well as English and English literature, there will be a new qualification in English language.
Although this includes assessment of reading, pupils will be able to pass the exam without studying any plays, poetry or classic novels.
The QCA says: "The aim is to develop students' understanding of language use in the real world, through engaging with and evaluating material that is relevant to their own development as speakers, listeners, readers and writers."
It describes the qualification as an "attractive stand-alone course" for students who have English as a second language. This reflects developments in the school population, and indicates that the exam system is changing to embrace the influx of immigrant families in some areas.
The QCA guidance adds that the English language exam would be suitable for "those needing a language qualification at this level but who are not required to fulfil the range of reading stipulated [in English literature]". It adds: "It provides an opportunity for students to extend their own skills as producers of spoken and written language in contexts that are both practical and challenging."
Source
BRITISH LABOUR PARTY WIPED OUT IN HENLEY BY-ELECTION
Gordon Brown suffered the humiliation on Friday of Labour crashing to fifth place in the Henley by-election on his first anniversary as prime minister. The unprecedented result, which placed the government behind the Green party and the far-right British National Party, is likely to raise further questions about Mr Brown's leadership and increase calls for change from Labour MPs.
The Conservatives comfortably held one of their safer seats, vacated by Boris Johnson when he left parliament to serve as London Mayor. John Howell, the Tory candidate, secured a majority of 10,116, increasing the Tory share of the vote from 53.5 per cent in 2005 to 57.5 per cent. In his acceptance speech he said "the British public has sent a message to Gordon Brown to 'get off our backs, stop the endless tax rises and help us cope with the rising cost of living'".
Labour expectations were extremely low ahead of the vote. But even the most pessimistic Labour MPs will be shocked that the governing party won little more than 1,000 votes, lost its 500 pounds deposit and trailed two parties with no representation in parliament.
Martin Salter, the Labour MP leading their campaign in Henley, described it as a "grim result" in which the government "reaped the whirlwind" of voter dismay over the credit crunch and faltering economy. "It is very difficult to divine a clear message for Gordon Brown in a seat in which we had no chance at all," he said.
Labour's share of the vote slumped from 14.8 per cent in 2005 to about 3 per cent - well short of the 5 per cent share required to keep their deposit. Lord Renard, the Liberal Democrat chief executive, said it was "abject humiliation" for Mr Brown.
More here
And below is the high-tax "Green" mentality that lost the election:
GORDON Brown was set to signal today he is prepared to take on public opinion over green taxes. The Prime Minister was to insist "real leadership" is necessary to reduce Britain's carbon footprint.
Announcing a 100 billion pound programme to slash greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Brown was due to say UK lifestyles must change over the next decade. The Government has been under pressure over green incentives such as tax hikes for owners of the most polluting, gas-guzzling vehicles.
But, at a lower carbon economy summit in London today, Mr Brown was to say a low carbon society will not emerge from a "business as usual" approach. "It will require real leadership from government - being prepared to make hard decisions on planning or on tax, for example, rather than tacking and changing according to the polls. It will require an investment programme of around 100 billion over the next 12 years. "It will involve new forms of economic activity and social organisation. "It will mean new kinds of consumer behaviour and lifestyles. "And it will demand creativity, innovation and entrepreneurialism throughout our economy and our society."
Thousands of new wind turbines could be built across the UK over the coming decade as part of the radical blueprint being unveiled today. Business Secretary John Hutton acknowledged the "green" power plants would cost more and take up more land than conventional electricity generation, but said Britain had "no choice" about moving to lower-carbon energy.
Source
The Pill ‘has had its day as an effective contraceptive’
An IUD revival? The Dalkon shield must have been forgotten
The Pill is “outdated” and leading to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions because so few women take it correctly, a leading academic has said. Nearly one in 12 women who takes the Pill stands to become pregnant each year by missing occasional tablets, James Trussell, of Princeton University, New Jersey, says.
Increasing access to emergency contraception - the “morning after” pill - would also not have a significant effect on rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortions, he will tell the British Pregnancy Advisory Service conference in London today.
Speakers at the conference on the future of abortion will say that women should use longer-lasting methods such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices (IUDs) that can be “fitted and forgotten”, but later removed if a woman wants a baby.
The Government wants to encourage more women to use long-acting methods, and guidance has suggested that if 7 per cent of women currently using the Pill switched to a long-acting method, then it would prevent 73,000 unintended pregnancies, saving the NHS 100 million a year.
But Professor Trussell said that few GPs offered long-acting reversible contraceptives or were trained at fitting them, so most women ended up using the Pill by default. “The Pill is an outdated method because it does not work well enough,” he added. “It is very difficult for ordinary women to take a pill every single day. The beauty of the implant or the IUD is that you can forget about them.”
Studies suggest that women miss three times as many pills as they commonly say they do. Computerised pill packs were used to show that although about half of women said they did not miss any pills, fewer than a third actually did.
Source
Saturday, June 28, 2008
A third of British secondary schools have a sex clinic
Nearly 1,000 secondary schools are providing `sexual health services' for their pupils. It means a million youngsters can get contraception, morning-after pills, pregnancy tests and tests for sexually transmitted diseases without any possibility that their parents will be told. A high proportion of secondary pupils are under 16 - the legal age of consent.
The rapid spread of sex services through schools with pupils as young as 11 has been hailed by campaigners who want sex education made compulsory and extended to primaries. Parents can find, however, that their children have not just been given contraception without their family's knowledge. In 2004 there was an outcry after it was revealed that 14-year-old Melissa Smith was given abortion pills without her mother being told. She was encouraged to have the termination by a 28-year-old health worker at her school sex clinic.
The survey of schools was carried out by the Sex Education Forum, an organisation run by the National Children's Bureau, a œ12million-a-year campaign group largely funded by taxpayers. Researcher Lucy Emmerson said: `We are encouraged to find that so many schools are providing sexual health services on-site. This is key to reducing teenage pregnancy rates and improving sexual health.' The survey was made public after a week which saw abortion hit record levels, with a 21 per cent rise among girls of 13 and a 10 per cent increase among under-16s.
Critics say giving out contraception in schools increases pregnancy and abortion by signalling that it is all right for young teenagers to have sex. Jill Kirby, of the centre-right think tank Centre for Policy Studies, said: `This is the normalisation of sex for pupils without the consent of parents.'
The survey was carried out among 2,185 schools, two-thirds of the secondaries in England. It found that 29 per cent had an `on-site sexual health service' - defined as distributing condoms and testing for pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. One in six of these schools gave pupils the morning-after pill, while one school in 20 offered contraceptive options, with prescriptions available for the Pill, injections or implants.
Sexual advice and the distribution of condoms by schools is a key plank of the Government's 138 million pound Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, which was intended to halve the number of pregnancies among under-18s between 1998 and 2010 but is acknowledged to be failing.
Miss Emmerson said parents should not worry about what their children might be offered at school. She said: `Parents with children in those schools will know that the support services will involve sexual health advice and what the range of services on offer are. Also, health professionals always encourage the young person to talk to their parents about any problems.'
Patricia Morgan, a researcher and author on family matters, said: `There is no evidence that giving out condoms works. Children have sex, you get pregnancies and abortions and the spread of infections. If you want progress you should start by telling children not to have sex.'
Government guidelines say that where children under 13 are thought to be having sex, police should be brought in. But opponents say that breaches the children's privacy and makes them less likely to seek help.
Source
POOR BRITAIN: HIGHER GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILLS TO PAY FOR SHIFT FROM FOSSIL FUELS
Householders will be warned today to expect five years of higher home energy bills to pay for a green power revolution. John Hutton, the Business Secretary, will outline plans for a massive shift away from fossil fuels to wind, solar and tidal power, but will add that the change comes at a price. "We think there will be a cost," he told The Times yesterday.
The plan, which he calls the biggest shake-up in Britain's power generation since the Industrial Revolution, requires 100 billion pounds of new investment but would lead to five years of higher gas and electricity bills from about 2015, he said.
Homeowners will be given financial incentives to fit their roofs with solar panels and there will be ambitious targets to increase their use from 90,000 today to seven million within the next 12 years. The plan also envisages a 90 per cent increase in the use of ground and air-source heat pumps that provide "free" heat by tapping the warmth in the air or the earth. Mr Hutton will also outline a "feed-in tariff" allowing homes that generate surplus electricity to sell it to the national grid as an incentive to switch.
The news comes a day after the chiefs of the big six energy companies gave warning that energy bills, which have already risen more than 15 per cent this year, would rise again within the next few months because of the rising price of oil.
Mr Hutton said the renewable cost would be "relatively modest", set against the current increases in the prices of coal, oil and gas and the scale would depend on movements in world oil prices. But he said that it was a necessary price to pay if Britain was serious about addressing climate change and switching to green technology.
More here
IVF severely limited in the home of IVF
Lots of women outside Britain have 10 or more treatments to get a baby. And infertility is a very common disorder
Thousands of infertile couples are being denied IVF that should be funded by the NHS because only 9 of 151 health trusts are offering the recommended level of therapy. A total of 94 per cent of primary care trusts in England are still not providing the three free cycles of IVF that should be available under national guidelines issued in 2004, government figures have revealed.
The survey of IVF provision last year also showed that all but a few trusts have imposed tough criteria for free fertility treatment, rejecting patients who smoke or who already have children, including those from previous relationships. Most of those that offered treatment paid for one cycle, and four trusts provided none at all. The results - the first to incorporate figures from every trust in England - were published yesterday by the Department of Health. They show that a postcode lottery for IVF is flourishing despite guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
The NHS financial watchdog recommended in 2004 that three cycles should be available to infertile couples in which the woman is aged between 23 and 39. Women's chances of conceiving are considerably better when more cycles are offered, to the extent that NICE identified three cycles as cost-effective. The advice is not binding, and the Government has provided no extra funds for it to be put into effect. The Department of Health has asked trusts to provide at least one cycle, and to move towards implementing it in full.
About one in six couples is affected by infertility. Almost 45,000 cycles of IVF are performed in the UK each year, but the level of NHS provision means that more than 30,000 of these are conducted privately, at an average cost of about 2,000 pounds per cycle.
The new figures were published as doctors prepare to celebrate the 30th birthday of Louise Brown, the world's first test tube baby, who was born in Oldham on July 25, 1978. Oldham is one of the nine trusts - all in the North West of England - that provide three cycles.
Susan Seenan, of the patient support charity Infertility Network UK, said: "Thirty years after the inception of IVF treatment, in the country that pioneered IVF, and four years after the NICE guideline, it is a complete disgrace that only nine PCTs are offering three free cycles. "We are also disappointed that some PCTs are still offering no cycles at all, and that most are adding social criteria that make it difficult and unfair for patients to access the treatment they need. "There is a real need for a standard set of eligibility criteria that operate nationwide."
The survey was published on the Department of Health's website in response to a parliamentary question from Sally Keeble, the Labour MP for Northampton North. It does not include data from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It found that seven PCTs offer three cycles - Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale; Bury; East Lancashire; Stockport; Tameside & Glossop; Traf-ford; and Blackburn with Darwen. Central Lancashire offers two or three cycles, and Oldham "a maximum of three". The four PCTs that have suspended free IVF treatment were North Lincolnshire, North Staffordshire, North Yorkshire and York, and Stoke on Trent, though the latter has since resumed provision.
About two-thirds of the trusts (100) offer one cycle, while 35 offer two, and three did not provide full information. More than half (86) specify that a couple must have no children, while another 46 impose other restrictions such as no children from the current relationship, or not more than one child. The survey found that 35 trusts specify no smoking, 30 say that patients must be in a stable relationship, and 33 impose age restrictions beyond those in the NICE guidelines.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said: "We recognise that there are local variations in the provision of IVF and that this does cause distress to many childless couples who feel that they are not getting the treatment they need. "NICE published their guide recommendations that trusts provide up to three cycles of IVF in February 2004. But NICE and the Department of Health realised that this could not be immediately implanted and so trusts were encouraged to use this as a goal they move towards. The first step is for all PCTs to offer at least one cycle of IVF and the vast majority do so, with almost a third already offering more than one cycle."
Source
What fun! "Labour came a humiliating fifth place behind the BNP and the Greens last night in the Henley by-election caused by Boris Johnson's election as London Mayor. Gordon Brown's first anniversary as Labour leader began with the party securing only 1,066 votes, losing its 500 pounds deposit, and having its working majority in the House of Commons cut to 65, as John Howell, the Conservative candidate, succeeded Mr Johnson in the Oxfordshire seat. The Liberal Democrats consolidated their position in second place"
Nearly 1,000 secondary schools are providing `sexual health services' for their pupils. It means a million youngsters can get contraception, morning-after pills, pregnancy tests and tests for sexually transmitted diseases without any possibility that their parents will be told. A high proportion of secondary pupils are under 16 - the legal age of consent.
The rapid spread of sex services through schools with pupils as young as 11 has been hailed by campaigners who want sex education made compulsory and extended to primaries. Parents can find, however, that their children have not just been given contraception without their family's knowledge. In 2004 there was an outcry after it was revealed that 14-year-old Melissa Smith was given abortion pills without her mother being told. She was encouraged to have the termination by a 28-year-old health worker at her school sex clinic.
The survey of schools was carried out by the Sex Education Forum, an organisation run by the National Children's Bureau, a œ12million-a-year campaign group largely funded by taxpayers. Researcher Lucy Emmerson said: `We are encouraged to find that so many schools are providing sexual health services on-site. This is key to reducing teenage pregnancy rates and improving sexual health.' The survey was made public after a week which saw abortion hit record levels, with a 21 per cent rise among girls of 13 and a 10 per cent increase among under-16s.
Critics say giving out contraception in schools increases pregnancy and abortion by signalling that it is all right for young teenagers to have sex. Jill Kirby, of the centre-right think tank Centre for Policy Studies, said: `This is the normalisation of sex for pupils without the consent of parents.'
The survey was carried out among 2,185 schools, two-thirds of the secondaries in England. It found that 29 per cent had an `on-site sexual health service' - defined as distributing condoms and testing for pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. One in six of these schools gave pupils the morning-after pill, while one school in 20 offered contraceptive options, with prescriptions available for the Pill, injections or implants.
Sexual advice and the distribution of condoms by schools is a key plank of the Government's 138 million pound Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, which was intended to halve the number of pregnancies among under-18s between 1998 and 2010 but is acknowledged to be failing.
Miss Emmerson said parents should not worry about what their children might be offered at school. She said: `Parents with children in those schools will know that the support services will involve sexual health advice and what the range of services on offer are. Also, health professionals always encourage the young person to talk to their parents about any problems.'
Patricia Morgan, a researcher and author on family matters, said: `There is no evidence that giving out condoms works. Children have sex, you get pregnancies and abortions and the spread of infections. If you want progress you should start by telling children not to have sex.'
Government guidelines say that where children under 13 are thought to be having sex, police should be brought in. But opponents say that breaches the children's privacy and makes them less likely to seek help.
Source
POOR BRITAIN: HIGHER GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILLS TO PAY FOR SHIFT FROM FOSSIL FUELS
Householders will be warned today to expect five years of higher home energy bills to pay for a green power revolution. John Hutton, the Business Secretary, will outline plans for a massive shift away from fossil fuels to wind, solar and tidal power, but will add that the change comes at a price. "We think there will be a cost," he told The Times yesterday.
The plan, which he calls the biggest shake-up in Britain's power generation since the Industrial Revolution, requires 100 billion pounds of new investment but would lead to five years of higher gas and electricity bills from about 2015, he said.
Homeowners will be given financial incentives to fit their roofs with solar panels and there will be ambitious targets to increase their use from 90,000 today to seven million within the next 12 years. The plan also envisages a 90 per cent increase in the use of ground and air-source heat pumps that provide "free" heat by tapping the warmth in the air or the earth. Mr Hutton will also outline a "feed-in tariff" allowing homes that generate surplus electricity to sell it to the national grid as an incentive to switch.
The news comes a day after the chiefs of the big six energy companies gave warning that energy bills, which have already risen more than 15 per cent this year, would rise again within the next few months because of the rising price of oil.
Mr Hutton said the renewable cost would be "relatively modest", set against the current increases in the prices of coal, oil and gas and the scale would depend on movements in world oil prices. But he said that it was a necessary price to pay if Britain was serious about addressing climate change and switching to green technology.
More here
IVF severely limited in the home of IVF
Lots of women outside Britain have 10 or more treatments to get a baby. And infertility is a very common disorder
Thousands of infertile couples are being denied IVF that should be funded by the NHS because only 9 of 151 health trusts are offering the recommended level of therapy. A total of 94 per cent of primary care trusts in England are still not providing the three free cycles of IVF that should be available under national guidelines issued in 2004, government figures have revealed.
The survey of IVF provision last year also showed that all but a few trusts have imposed tough criteria for free fertility treatment, rejecting patients who smoke or who already have children, including those from previous relationships. Most of those that offered treatment paid for one cycle, and four trusts provided none at all. The results - the first to incorporate figures from every trust in England - were published yesterday by the Department of Health. They show that a postcode lottery for IVF is flourishing despite guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
The NHS financial watchdog recommended in 2004 that three cycles should be available to infertile couples in which the woman is aged between 23 and 39. Women's chances of conceiving are considerably better when more cycles are offered, to the extent that NICE identified three cycles as cost-effective. The advice is not binding, and the Government has provided no extra funds for it to be put into effect. The Department of Health has asked trusts to provide at least one cycle, and to move towards implementing it in full.
About one in six couples is affected by infertility. Almost 45,000 cycles of IVF are performed in the UK each year, but the level of NHS provision means that more than 30,000 of these are conducted privately, at an average cost of about 2,000 pounds per cycle.
The new figures were published as doctors prepare to celebrate the 30th birthday of Louise Brown, the world's first test tube baby, who was born in Oldham on July 25, 1978. Oldham is one of the nine trusts - all in the North West of England - that provide three cycles.
Susan Seenan, of the patient support charity Infertility Network UK, said: "Thirty years after the inception of IVF treatment, in the country that pioneered IVF, and four years after the NICE guideline, it is a complete disgrace that only nine PCTs are offering three free cycles. "We are also disappointed that some PCTs are still offering no cycles at all, and that most are adding social criteria that make it difficult and unfair for patients to access the treatment they need. "There is a real need for a standard set of eligibility criteria that operate nationwide."
The survey was published on the Department of Health's website in response to a parliamentary question from Sally Keeble, the Labour MP for Northampton North. It does not include data from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It found that seven PCTs offer three cycles - Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale; Bury; East Lancashire; Stockport; Tameside & Glossop; Traf-ford; and Blackburn with Darwen. Central Lancashire offers two or three cycles, and Oldham "a maximum of three". The four PCTs that have suspended free IVF treatment were North Lincolnshire, North Staffordshire, North Yorkshire and York, and Stoke on Trent, though the latter has since resumed provision.
About two-thirds of the trusts (100) offer one cycle, while 35 offer two, and three did not provide full information. More than half (86) specify that a couple must have no children, while another 46 impose other restrictions such as no children from the current relationship, or not more than one child. The survey found that 35 trusts specify no smoking, 30 say that patients must be in a stable relationship, and 33 impose age restrictions beyond those in the NICE guidelines.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said: "We recognise that there are local variations in the provision of IVF and that this does cause distress to many childless couples who feel that they are not getting the treatment they need. "NICE published their guide recommendations that trusts provide up to three cycles of IVF in February 2004. But NICE and the Department of Health realised that this could not be immediately implanted and so trusts were encouraged to use this as a goal they move towards. The first step is for all PCTs to offer at least one cycle of IVF and the vast majority do so, with almost a third already offering more than one cycle."
Source
What fun! "Labour came a humiliating fifth place behind the BNP and the Greens last night in the Henley by-election caused by Boris Johnson's election as London Mayor. Gordon Brown's first anniversary as Labour leader began with the party securing only 1,066 votes, losing its 500 pounds deposit, and having its working majority in the House of Commons cut to 65, as John Howell, the Conservative candidate, succeeded Mr Johnson in the Oxfordshire seat. The Liberal Democrats consolidated their position in second place"
Friday, June 27, 2008
NHS hospital pronounces ten-month-old girl dead -- despite her being alive
An investigation has begun into how a ten-month-old girl, feared drowned in the Thames, was wrongly pronounced dead by hospital staff. It was believed that the child had died after she fell in during an outing to feed the ducks with her mother and three-year-old sister. She was airlifted to John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, but after efforts to resuscitate her, doctors declared her dead. Police confirmed the tragedy at 11am, more than an hour after officers were first called to the scene on the towpath at Goring-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, yesterday morning.
A faint heartbeat was discovered later, and the girl remains in hospital in a critical condition. Neither the hospital nor the police would give details of how long it took hospital staff to discover that the child was still alive, nor could they confirm how the child got into difficulty in the water.
A spokeswoman for John Radcliffe Hospital said: “A full paediatric clinical team immediately attempted to resuscitate the child in the emergency department of the John Radcliffe. “After a lengthy period of resuscitation, a unanimous decision was made by the clinical team to stop treatment, in the best interests of the child. [It's in her best interests to be dead?????]
“Subsequently, the child showed very fragile signs of life. This does occasionally happen and the child was moved to the paediatric intensive care unit of the hospital. She remains there in an extremely serious and critical condition.”
Source
So now Britain will have degrees in quackery
It's hard to grade nonsense on a scale, but of all forms of medical quackery, psychic surgery must be judged one of the least scrupulous. You might recall the odd television expose of its practitioners - so-called 'surgeons' who appear to be operating on patients with their bare hands, and who seem to be able to remove allegedly diseased tissue without making any incisions. Despite being exposed as hoaxers, 'psychic surgeons' continue to cast their spell over the gullible and desperate – mostly in Brazil and the Philippines. The odd case still crops up in the supposedly less superstitious United Kingdom.
About a year ago the Conservative MP Robert Key wrote to the Department of Health following a complaint by one of his constituents, who had been a victim of such fraudulent "healing." I have the full ministerial reply in front of me. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath told Mr Key: "We are currently working towards extending the scope of statutory regulation by introducing regulation of herbal medicine, acupuncture practitioners and Chinese medicine. However, there are no plans to extend statutory regulation to other professions such as psychic surgery. "We expect these professions to develop their own unified systems of voluntary self-regulation. If they then wish to pursue statutory regulation, they will need to demonstrate that there are risks to patients and the public that voluntary regulation cannot address. I hope this clarifies the current position."
Indeed, it does. It makes it clear that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. For a start, how could Philip Hunt, previously director of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, possibly have thought that "psychic healing" constituted a "profession" – let alone one which would "develop its own system of voluntary self-regulation? What might this involve? A code which declares that members must never perform genuine surgery, lest it brings the "profession" into disrepute?
Last week, in fact, the Department of Health published the report which outlines the regulation hinted at by Lord Hunt. It is called the Report to Ministers from the Department of Health Steering Group on the Statutory Regulation of Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine and other Traditional Medicine Systems Practiced in the United Kingdom.
It is a scary document, and not just because many of its recommendations stem from something called the "Acupuncture Stakeholder Group". You thought they just used needles, didn't you?
Acupuncture is at the most respectable end of the alternative health spectrum – its practitioners would be affronted to be lumped in with psychic surgeons. Yet what, really, is the difference? There are many "patients" in the Philippines and Brazil who will insist that psychic surgery has cured chronic ailments which conventional medicine failed to alleviate. Such is the power of placebo – the driving force of all unconventional medical treatments, including acupuncture.
A few months ago an investigation into acupuncture, involving 1,162 patients with lower back pain, made a splash in newspapers across the world. The researchers at Regensburg University declared that just 27.4 per cent of those who had only conventional treatments such as physiotherapy felt able to report an improvement in their condition. However, of those who also underwent acupuncture, 47.6 per cent reported an improvement. So all that stuff about "different levels of Qi", "meridians", "major acupuncture points" and "extraordinary fu" is scientifically validated, then? Well, not quite, despite what some of the news reports said.
You see, the cunning researchers of Regensburg had one control group of back-pain sufferers who were told that they were undergoing traditional acupuncture – whereas in fact the needles were inserted entirely at random; and instead being put in to a depth of up to 40mm (as required by the acupuncture textbooks) were merely inserted just below the skin. This was sham acupuncture. And guess what? It worked – within the statistical margin of error – just as well as the "real" acupuncture: 44.2 per cent of the recipients of the sham treatment said that their back pain had been alleviated in a way which they had not experienced through conventional medicine.
Now here's another remarkable thing: the main body of the report produced for the Government last week does not contain the word "placebo" – and it crops up only twice in the appendices. One can understand why the various "stakeholders" who were consulted might have wanted to steer away from this fundamental question, but it's surprising that the chairman of the report, Professor Michael Pittilo, principal of Robert Gordon University, didn't insist upon it.
After all, Professor Pittilo claims that his report was an "echo" of the House of Lords' Science and Technology Committee report on the same subject – which had declared that the single most important question that any such investigation must address is: "Does the treatment offer therapeutic benefits greater than placebo?"
That indefatigable quackbuster, Professor David Colquhoun of University College London is on the case, however. His indispensable blog points out that Professor Pittilo is a trustee of the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health, which advocates exactly the sort of therapies that this committee is supposed to be regulating.
Pittilo and his band of "stakeholders" have come up with their own way of "regulating" the alternative health industry – which the Government has welcomed. It is to suggest that practitioners gain university degrees in complementary or alternative medicine. Pittilo's own university just happens to offer such courses, which Professor Colquhoun has long campaigned against as "science degrees without the science."
It will be a particular boon to the University of Westminster, whose "Department of Complementary Therapies", teaches students all about such practices as homeopathy, McTimoney chiropractic, crystals, and 'vibrational medicine'.
One can see how this might fit in with the Government's "never mind the quality, feel the width" approach to university education. One can also see how established practitioners of such therapies might see this as a future source of income – how pleasant it might be to become Visiting Professor of Vibrational Medicine at the University of Westminster.
Thus garlanded with the laurels of academic pseudo-science, the newly professionalised practitioners of "alternative medicine" can look down on such riff-raff as the "psychic surgeons". Yet in one way those charlatans are less objectionable than Harley Street homeopaths: they openly admit that they are faith-healers, rather than pretend to academic status; and while they have made fools of their patients they haven't-yet-made a fool of the Government.
Source
Britain to get new border police force?
Plans for a new police border force are to be floated by the government, it has been revealed. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made the admission in a 16-page response to a report by Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of UK terrorism legislation. The proposal for a 3,000 strong force, put forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), will be in a police reform Green Paper.
The Conservatives accused the government of "playing catch-up". A Home Office spokeswoman said they wanted to use the Green Paper "to invite wider views".
The proposed border force would include uniformed officers and officers from Special Branch. It comes just months after the UK Border Agency was launched - comprised of officers from the Border and Immigration Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and UK visas. At the time the Conservatives dismissed the agency as "lacking the powers to chase people traffickers and employers of illegal labour".
On the idea of a police border force, the Home Office said the Green Paper looked at a "number of proposals for policing at the border, including the Acpo proposal". "No decision has been taken about the future of border policing and we are keen to use the Green Paper to invite wider views," a spokeswoman said.
Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said such a force would be "welcome but very overdue". "For two years we have been calling for a dedicated border police force - something ministers have consistently rubbished," he said. "Having dithered, the government have now realised their error and are trying to play catch up."
A spokesman for Acpo said it saw merit in creating a separate agency or force to work closely with the UK Border Agency. "The government's focus should be on border control and this agency would focus on security, and would preserve the distinction between operational policing and the government."
The Home Office revealed its plans as the independent reviewer of UK terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, warned in his annual report there was "real anxiety" among senior police officers at the potential use of light aircraft as "vehicle bombs". He also criticised police for overusing anti-terrorism stop-and-search powers, saying their use should be halved.
BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said aviation security has been a theme of Lord Carlile's reports. In his latest, Lord Carlile highlights the risk of terrorists hijacking executive jets which travel at high-speed across continents. Although there is said to be no intelligence about this, Lord Carlile said senior police officers had concerns, given the large number of private aircraft and small airfields.
Also in the report, the peer criticised police for over-using powers to stop-and search-people under the Terrorism Act - there were five occasions in 2007 when officers did not have authorisation. He said there was an "inconsistency of approach" among chief constables about the powers. It emerged last December that Sussex police had wrongly deployed the measures at Gatwick airport, where they unlawfully stopped and searched hundreds of people.
Lord Carlile's document showed that similar errors were made by the Greater Manchester and South Wales forces last year. The police must obtain ministerial authority before they designate an area a stop-and-search zone under the Terrorism Act 2000. To remain legal, this must also be renewed regularly, otherwise the police could be sued for wrongful detention.
Lord Carlile said 12 people were detained. He hoped they had been informed of the mistake in writing, so they could consider suing the police. The peer also said that 257 people were arrested under terrorism powers in 2007, of whom 126 were eventually released without charge. "The realities of this kind of policing increase the possibility of arrests later found to be of innocent members of the public," he said. But he added: "I am satisfied that the level of arrests is proportionate to perceived risk."
Lord Carlile also expressed "serious worries" about the Crown Prosecution Service's practice of charging terrorist suspects on the basis of less evidence - the so-called "threshold test". He said it contained "at least as many and certainly more concealed risks of causing unfair extended detention" as the proposal for 42 days' detention.
Source
British Tories back have-a-go citizens
The public should be able to use physical force to restrain yobs without fear of being prosecuted for assault, according to a new Conservative policy. Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "We have a duty to prevent crime, and law-abiding citizens should not be discouraged by either the state or the police."
It was necessary to clarify the law in order to "reignite the citizenry", he said. "If you grab a 12-year-old by the scruff of the neck now, you might be in trouble and this is something that we should be looking at. "People should act sensibly, but they can do a lot to stop crime."
Grieve believes people have become wary of intervening to stop delinquency after a series of cases in which members of the public and teachers have been charged with assault for trying to restrain violent teenagers. The disappearance of traditional reprimands by parents, teachers and neighbours, he said, meant many teenagers were being dealt with unnecessarily by the criminal justice system.
To redress the balance, Grieve wants the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to be given new guidelines for dealing with people who intervene to prevent crime. He argued that it was often better in the long run for teenagers to be tackled by an authority figure than to end up in court with a criminal record, which could start them on the path to serious crime.
Many teenagers who got into trouble, he said, went on to lead law-abiding lives. To illustrate the point, Grieve admitted that when he was 12, he and a friend broke into an abandoned house and smashed it up, shooting out the windows with an air rifle.
Source
Wind turbines are 'unreliable and will cost each British home 4,000 pounds
The Government's plan to build thousands of new wind turbines across Britain is misguided, doomed to failure and will cost every household at least 4,000 pounds, a new report claims. Rather than trying to solve the UK's energy crisis by investing in wind power, ministers should focus on tidal energy, clean coal and nuclear power, it says.
The report from the Centre for Policy Studies - a right of centre think tank - comes on the eve of the Government's announcement on the future of green energy. Ministers will tomorrow reveal how the UK will meet the EU's target for producing 15 per cent of all energy from renewable sources within 12 years.
The plans include a six-fold expansion of wind farms on land, and a 30-fold increase in offshore turbines. To meet the targets, Britain will need to build one new turbine every day between now and 2020. The dash for wind is also being fuelled by concerns that Britain is running out of power. By 2015 new European clean air laws will have shut many coal power stations while many of the UK's ageing nuclear power stations will be shut, leaving a energy gap of up to 32 gigawatts.
"A rush to wind energy is not the answer to these problems," said Tim Knox, of the CPS. The report says wind is unreliable - and only provides power if the weather conditions are right. The UK will need a fleet of coal, gas or nuclear power stations in reserve for when the wind drops.
Turbines are also expensive. The Royal Academy of Engineering estimates that wind energy is two and a half times more costly than other forms of non- oil and gas electricity generation, according to the report Wind Chill: Why Wind Energy Will Not Fill the UK's Energy Gap.
The shift to renewables could cost 100 million - or 4,000 for every household in the country, it adds. "It is also impractical," Mr Knox added. "The UK does not have the capability to build the 3,000 new offshore wind farms that are proposed, nor can the national grid handle the enormous new strains that will be imposed upon it. "This matters. The increase in consumers' electricity prices required to pay for and maintain expensive wind energy will contribute to the difficulties faced by the six million householders facing fuel poverty."
A poll carried out for the report found just three per cent of people were willing to pay higher electricity bills to fund renewable power such as wind. Another 37 per cent were "very unwilling," while 24 per cent said they were "fairly unwilling". Only 12 per cent said they were happy to pay more.
The report - written by energy analyst Tony Lodge, concludes: "Greater reliance on wind power could lead to electricity supply disruptions if the wind does not blow, blows too hard or does not blow where wind farms are located."
The wind industry dismissed the criticisms. "The National Grid has said many times they can cope with the variability of wind," said Chris Tomlinson of the British Wind Energy Association. "Never in history has there not been wind blowing somewhere in the UK." Creating thousands of new turbines would be a "challenge", but the job was not impossible, he added.
Source
Another characteristically humorous article from London Mayor Boris Johnson here. Another indication of why he is arguably the second most popular man in Britain (Jeremy Clarkson obviously comes first). If you are familiar with British doings, there is a good article ABOUT Boris by humorist Anne Treneman here. I am a great lover of British humour but I think you may have to know Brits well to "get" it.
There is a new lot of postings by Chris Brand just up -- on his usual vastly "incorrect" themes of race, genes, IQ etc.
An investigation has begun into how a ten-month-old girl, feared drowned in the Thames, was wrongly pronounced dead by hospital staff. It was believed that the child had died after she fell in during an outing to feed the ducks with her mother and three-year-old sister. She was airlifted to John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, but after efforts to resuscitate her, doctors declared her dead. Police confirmed the tragedy at 11am, more than an hour after officers were first called to the scene on the towpath at Goring-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, yesterday morning.
A faint heartbeat was discovered later, and the girl remains in hospital in a critical condition. Neither the hospital nor the police would give details of how long it took hospital staff to discover that the child was still alive, nor could they confirm how the child got into difficulty in the water.
A spokeswoman for John Radcliffe Hospital said: “A full paediatric clinical team immediately attempted to resuscitate the child in the emergency department of the John Radcliffe. “After a lengthy period of resuscitation, a unanimous decision was made by the clinical team to stop treatment, in the best interests of the child. [It's in her best interests to be dead?????]
“Subsequently, the child showed very fragile signs of life. This does occasionally happen and the child was moved to the paediatric intensive care unit of the hospital. She remains there in an extremely serious and critical condition.”
Source
So now Britain will have degrees in quackery
It's hard to grade nonsense on a scale, but of all forms of medical quackery, psychic surgery must be judged one of the least scrupulous. You might recall the odd television expose of its practitioners - so-called 'surgeons' who appear to be operating on patients with their bare hands, and who seem to be able to remove allegedly diseased tissue without making any incisions. Despite being exposed as hoaxers, 'psychic surgeons' continue to cast their spell over the gullible and desperate – mostly in Brazil and the Philippines. The odd case still crops up in the supposedly less superstitious United Kingdom.
About a year ago the Conservative MP Robert Key wrote to the Department of Health following a complaint by one of his constituents, who had been a victim of such fraudulent "healing." I have the full ministerial reply in front of me. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath told Mr Key: "We are currently working towards extending the scope of statutory regulation by introducing regulation of herbal medicine, acupuncture practitioners and Chinese medicine. However, there are no plans to extend statutory regulation to other professions such as psychic surgery. "We expect these professions to develop their own unified systems of voluntary self-regulation. If they then wish to pursue statutory regulation, they will need to demonstrate that there are risks to patients and the public that voluntary regulation cannot address. I hope this clarifies the current position."
Indeed, it does. It makes it clear that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. For a start, how could Philip Hunt, previously director of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, possibly have thought that "psychic healing" constituted a "profession" – let alone one which would "develop its own system of voluntary self-regulation? What might this involve? A code which declares that members must never perform genuine surgery, lest it brings the "profession" into disrepute?
Last week, in fact, the Department of Health published the report which outlines the regulation hinted at by Lord Hunt. It is called the Report to Ministers from the Department of Health Steering Group on the Statutory Regulation of Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine and other Traditional Medicine Systems Practiced in the United Kingdom.
It is a scary document, and not just because many of its recommendations stem from something called the "Acupuncture Stakeholder Group". You thought they just used needles, didn't you?
Acupuncture is at the most respectable end of the alternative health spectrum – its practitioners would be affronted to be lumped in with psychic surgeons. Yet what, really, is the difference? There are many "patients" in the Philippines and Brazil who will insist that psychic surgery has cured chronic ailments which conventional medicine failed to alleviate. Such is the power of placebo – the driving force of all unconventional medical treatments, including acupuncture.
A few months ago an investigation into acupuncture, involving 1,162 patients with lower back pain, made a splash in newspapers across the world. The researchers at Regensburg University declared that just 27.4 per cent of those who had only conventional treatments such as physiotherapy felt able to report an improvement in their condition. However, of those who also underwent acupuncture, 47.6 per cent reported an improvement. So all that stuff about "different levels of Qi", "meridians", "major acupuncture points" and "extraordinary fu" is scientifically validated, then? Well, not quite, despite what some of the news reports said.
You see, the cunning researchers of Regensburg had one control group of back-pain sufferers who were told that they were undergoing traditional acupuncture – whereas in fact the needles were inserted entirely at random; and instead being put in to a depth of up to 40mm (as required by the acupuncture textbooks) were merely inserted just below the skin. This was sham acupuncture. And guess what? It worked – within the statistical margin of error – just as well as the "real" acupuncture: 44.2 per cent of the recipients of the sham treatment said that their back pain had been alleviated in a way which they had not experienced through conventional medicine.
Now here's another remarkable thing: the main body of the report produced for the Government last week does not contain the word "placebo" – and it crops up only twice in the appendices. One can understand why the various "stakeholders" who were consulted might have wanted to steer away from this fundamental question, but it's surprising that the chairman of the report, Professor Michael Pittilo, principal of Robert Gordon University, didn't insist upon it.
After all, Professor Pittilo claims that his report was an "echo" of the House of Lords' Science and Technology Committee report on the same subject – which had declared that the single most important question that any such investigation must address is: "Does the treatment offer therapeutic benefits greater than placebo?"
That indefatigable quackbuster, Professor David Colquhoun of University College London is on the case, however. His indispensable blog points out that Professor Pittilo is a trustee of the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health, which advocates exactly the sort of therapies that this committee is supposed to be regulating.
Pittilo and his band of "stakeholders" have come up with their own way of "regulating" the alternative health industry – which the Government has welcomed. It is to suggest that practitioners gain university degrees in complementary or alternative medicine. Pittilo's own university just happens to offer such courses, which Professor Colquhoun has long campaigned against as "science degrees without the science."
It will be a particular boon to the University of Westminster, whose "Department of Complementary Therapies", teaches students all about such practices as homeopathy, McTimoney chiropractic, crystals, and 'vibrational medicine'.
One can see how this might fit in with the Government's "never mind the quality, feel the width" approach to university education. One can also see how established practitioners of such therapies might see this as a future source of income – how pleasant it might be to become Visiting Professor of Vibrational Medicine at the University of Westminster.
Thus garlanded with the laurels of academic pseudo-science, the newly professionalised practitioners of "alternative medicine" can look down on such riff-raff as the "psychic surgeons". Yet in one way those charlatans are less objectionable than Harley Street homeopaths: they openly admit that they are faith-healers, rather than pretend to academic status; and while they have made fools of their patients they haven't-yet-made a fool of the Government.
Source
Britain to get new border police force?
Plans for a new police border force are to be floated by the government, it has been revealed. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made the admission in a 16-page response to a report by Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of UK terrorism legislation. The proposal for a 3,000 strong force, put forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), will be in a police reform Green Paper.
The Conservatives accused the government of "playing catch-up". A Home Office spokeswoman said they wanted to use the Green Paper "to invite wider views".
The proposed border force would include uniformed officers and officers from Special Branch. It comes just months after the UK Border Agency was launched - comprised of officers from the Border and Immigration Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and UK visas. At the time the Conservatives dismissed the agency as "lacking the powers to chase people traffickers and employers of illegal labour".
On the idea of a police border force, the Home Office said the Green Paper looked at a "number of proposals for policing at the border, including the Acpo proposal". "No decision has been taken about the future of border policing and we are keen to use the Green Paper to invite wider views," a spokeswoman said.
Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said such a force would be "welcome but very overdue". "For two years we have been calling for a dedicated border police force - something ministers have consistently rubbished," he said. "Having dithered, the government have now realised their error and are trying to play catch up."
A spokesman for Acpo said it saw merit in creating a separate agency or force to work closely with the UK Border Agency. "The government's focus should be on border control and this agency would focus on security, and would preserve the distinction between operational policing and the government."
The Home Office revealed its plans as the independent reviewer of UK terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, warned in his annual report there was "real anxiety" among senior police officers at the potential use of light aircraft as "vehicle bombs". He also criticised police for overusing anti-terrorism stop-and-search powers, saying their use should be halved.
BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said aviation security has been a theme of Lord Carlile's reports. In his latest, Lord Carlile highlights the risk of terrorists hijacking executive jets which travel at high-speed across continents. Although there is said to be no intelligence about this, Lord Carlile said senior police officers had concerns, given the large number of private aircraft and small airfields.
Also in the report, the peer criticised police for over-using powers to stop-and search-people under the Terrorism Act - there were five occasions in 2007 when officers did not have authorisation. He said there was an "inconsistency of approach" among chief constables about the powers. It emerged last December that Sussex police had wrongly deployed the measures at Gatwick airport, where they unlawfully stopped and searched hundreds of people.
Lord Carlile's document showed that similar errors were made by the Greater Manchester and South Wales forces last year. The police must obtain ministerial authority before they designate an area a stop-and-search zone under the Terrorism Act 2000. To remain legal, this must also be renewed regularly, otherwise the police could be sued for wrongful detention.
Lord Carlile said 12 people were detained. He hoped they had been informed of the mistake in writing, so they could consider suing the police. The peer also said that 257 people were arrested under terrorism powers in 2007, of whom 126 were eventually released without charge. "The realities of this kind of policing increase the possibility of arrests later found to be of innocent members of the public," he said. But he added: "I am satisfied that the level of arrests is proportionate to perceived risk."
Lord Carlile also expressed "serious worries" about the Crown Prosecution Service's practice of charging terrorist suspects on the basis of less evidence - the so-called "threshold test". He said it contained "at least as many and certainly more concealed risks of causing unfair extended detention" as the proposal for 42 days' detention.
Source
British Tories back have-a-go citizens
The public should be able to use physical force to restrain yobs without fear of being prosecuted for assault, according to a new Conservative policy. Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "We have a duty to prevent crime, and law-abiding citizens should not be discouraged by either the state or the police."
It was necessary to clarify the law in order to "reignite the citizenry", he said. "If you grab a 12-year-old by the scruff of the neck now, you might be in trouble and this is something that we should be looking at. "People should act sensibly, but they can do a lot to stop crime."
Grieve believes people have become wary of intervening to stop delinquency after a series of cases in which members of the public and teachers have been charged with assault for trying to restrain violent teenagers. The disappearance of traditional reprimands by parents, teachers and neighbours, he said, meant many teenagers were being dealt with unnecessarily by the criminal justice system.
To redress the balance, Grieve wants the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to be given new guidelines for dealing with people who intervene to prevent crime. He argued that it was often better in the long run for teenagers to be tackled by an authority figure than to end up in court with a criminal record, which could start them on the path to serious crime.
Many teenagers who got into trouble, he said, went on to lead law-abiding lives. To illustrate the point, Grieve admitted that when he was 12, he and a friend broke into an abandoned house and smashed it up, shooting out the windows with an air rifle.
Source
Wind turbines are 'unreliable and will cost each British home 4,000 pounds
The Government's plan to build thousands of new wind turbines across Britain is misguided, doomed to failure and will cost every household at least 4,000 pounds, a new report claims. Rather than trying to solve the UK's energy crisis by investing in wind power, ministers should focus on tidal energy, clean coal and nuclear power, it says.
The report from the Centre for Policy Studies - a right of centre think tank - comes on the eve of the Government's announcement on the future of green energy. Ministers will tomorrow reveal how the UK will meet the EU's target for producing 15 per cent of all energy from renewable sources within 12 years.
The plans include a six-fold expansion of wind farms on land, and a 30-fold increase in offshore turbines. To meet the targets, Britain will need to build one new turbine every day between now and 2020. The dash for wind is also being fuelled by concerns that Britain is running out of power. By 2015 new European clean air laws will have shut many coal power stations while many of the UK's ageing nuclear power stations will be shut, leaving a energy gap of up to 32 gigawatts.
"A rush to wind energy is not the answer to these problems," said Tim Knox, of the CPS. The report says wind is unreliable - and only provides power if the weather conditions are right. The UK will need a fleet of coal, gas or nuclear power stations in reserve for when the wind drops.
Turbines are also expensive. The Royal Academy of Engineering estimates that wind energy is two and a half times more costly than other forms of non- oil and gas electricity generation, according to the report Wind Chill: Why Wind Energy Will Not Fill the UK's Energy Gap.
The shift to renewables could cost 100 million - or 4,000 for every household in the country, it adds. "It is also impractical," Mr Knox added. "The UK does not have the capability to build the 3,000 new offshore wind farms that are proposed, nor can the national grid handle the enormous new strains that will be imposed upon it. "This matters. The increase in consumers' electricity prices required to pay for and maintain expensive wind energy will contribute to the difficulties faced by the six million householders facing fuel poverty."
A poll carried out for the report found just three per cent of people were willing to pay higher electricity bills to fund renewable power such as wind. Another 37 per cent were "very unwilling," while 24 per cent said they were "fairly unwilling". Only 12 per cent said they were happy to pay more.
The report - written by energy analyst Tony Lodge, concludes: "Greater reliance on wind power could lead to electricity supply disruptions if the wind does not blow, blows too hard or does not blow where wind farms are located."
The wind industry dismissed the criticisms. "The National Grid has said many times they can cope with the variability of wind," said Chris Tomlinson of the British Wind Energy Association. "Never in history has there not been wind blowing somewhere in the UK." Creating thousands of new turbines would be a "challenge", but the job was not impossible, he added.
Source
Another characteristically humorous article from London Mayor Boris Johnson here. Another indication of why he is arguably the second most popular man in Britain (Jeremy Clarkson obviously comes first). If you are familiar with British doings, there is a good article ABOUT Boris by humorist Anne Treneman here. I am a great lover of British humour but I think you may have to know Brits well to "get" it.
There is a new lot of postings by Chris Brand just up -- on his usual vastly "incorrect" themes of race, genes, IQ etc.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
English Council bans "brainstorming"
We read:
Britons fear the carbon cops are coming
First there were the thought police, then the surveillance society, now Britons fear the carbon cops are coming to ensure compliance with climate change legislation, a survey showed on Wednesday. And with warnings of global catastrophe ringing in their ears some people fear that failure to cut personal carbon emissions will eventually result in enforced carbon behaviour re-education, the Energy Saving Trust said.
It said 41 percent of Britons think the country will need its own Carbon Police Force by mid-century and one quarter believe repeat offenders will have to go into carbon rehab and take carbon addiction classes."The UK's perception is that by 2050 we could have the sort of draconian infringements on our civil liberties that have been highlighted in our research. This need not be the case," said EST chief Philip Sellwood said."The carbon emissions we all produce from our homes and travel amount to over 40 per cent of the UK's total emissions so we all have a part to play."
The survey coincides with the EST's "Emission Impossible, a vision for a low carbon lifestyle by 2050."EST, set up to help people to kick their carbon habit, wants more home power generation, smart meters in homes to help cut power consumption, less water wastage, more reuse and recycling and more emphasis on efficient appliances.
"Our report outlines the Energy Saving Trust's vision for achieving a low-carbon lifestyle by 2050 where we meet our 80 per cent reduction targets without adopting austere lifestyles or making unpleasant personal sacrifices," Sellwood said.
Source
Fathers' day on the way to being banned
If Scotland is a bellwether
Christian references have been removed from Christmas cards and school sports days excised of competitiveness. Now Father's Day has become the latest event to fall victim to the forces of political correctness. Last week thousands of children were prevented from making Father’s Day cards at school to avoid causing embarrassment to classmates who live with single mothers and lesbian couples. The politically correct policy in the interests of “sensitivity” over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households, has been quietly adopted by schools across Scotland.
It only emerged this year after a large number of fathers failed to receive their traditional cards and gifts last Sunday. While primary children are banned from making cards for their fathers, few schools impose similar restrictions in the run up to Mothering Sunday. The ban has been introduced by schools in Glasgow, Edinburgh, East Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Clackmannanshire. Currently, some 280,000 children in Scotland live in single parent households, accounting for just 7% of the total.
Tina Woolnough, 45, from Edinburgh, whose son Felix attends Blackhall primary, said a number of teachers at the school had not allowed children to make Father’s Day cards this year. “This is something I know they do on a class-by-class basis at my son Felix’s school,” said Woolnough, who is a member of the school’s parent-teacher council. Some classes send Father’s Day cards and some do not. “The teachers are aware of the family circumstances of the children in each class and if a child hasn’t got a father living at home, the teacher will avoid getting the children to make a card.”
Family rights campaigners have condemned the policy as “absurd” and claimed it is marginalising fathers. “I’m astonished at this, it totally undermines the role and significance of fathers whether they are still with the child’s mother or not,” said Matt O’Connor, founder of Fathers For Justice. “It also sends out a troubling message to young boys that fathers aren’t important.”
Alastair Noble, education officer with the charity Christian Action, Research and Education, added: “This seems to be an extreme and somewhat absurd reaction. I would have thought that the traditional family and marriage are still the majority lifestyles of people in Scotland. To deny the experience of the majority just does not seem sensible.”
Victoria Gillick, the family values campaigner, accused schools of politicising a traditional fun activity for children. “Children like making things, and making things for someone is great fun. I wouldn’t call it politically correct, I’d just call it stupid,” she said. “It seems quite unfair to deny those children whose parents are together and who want to make cards from enjoying the experience. Stopping children from making Father’s Day cards is reinforcing the fact that some fathers are not there, it’s actually drawing attention to the issue.”
Local authorities defended the move, saying teachers needed to act sensitively at a time when many children were experiencing family breakdown and divorce. “Increasingly, it is the case that there are children who haven’t got fathers or haven’t got fathers living with them and teachers are having to be sensitive about this,” said a spokesman for East Renfrewshire council. “Teachers have always had to deal with some pupils not having fathers or mothers, but with marital breakdown it is accelerating.”
Jim Goodall, head of education at Clackmannanshire council, said: “We expect teachers and headteachers to apply their professional skills and behave in a common sense manner. They have to be sensitive to the appropriate use of class time and the changing pattern of family life. We trust our staff to act sensibly and sensitively." A spokesman for South Ayrshire council said: “We are aware of the sensitivities of the issue and wouldn’t do anything that would make any child feel left out or unwanted in any way.” Edinburgh city council said the practice on Father’s Day cards was a matter for individual schools.
Source
We read:
"A council has banned the term `brainstorming' - and replaced it with `thought showers.' Officials Tunbridge Wells Borough Council in Kent feared the phrase might offend epileptics or the mentally ill. Staff have been sent memos about the change and even sent on training courses, reports The Sun.
But Margaret Thomas, of the National Society for Epilepsy, said: `Brainstorming is a clear and descriptive phrase. Alternatives such as `thought shower' or `blue-sky thinking' are ambiguous to say the least. Any implication that the word `brainstorming' is offensive to epileptics takes political correctness too far."
Source
Britons fear the carbon cops are coming
First there were the thought police, then the surveillance society, now Britons fear the carbon cops are coming to ensure compliance with climate change legislation, a survey showed on Wednesday. And with warnings of global catastrophe ringing in their ears some people fear that failure to cut personal carbon emissions will eventually result in enforced carbon behaviour re-education, the Energy Saving Trust said.
It said 41 percent of Britons think the country will need its own Carbon Police Force by mid-century and one quarter believe repeat offenders will have to go into carbon rehab and take carbon addiction classes."The UK's perception is that by 2050 we could have the sort of draconian infringements on our civil liberties that have been highlighted in our research. This need not be the case," said EST chief Philip Sellwood said."The carbon emissions we all produce from our homes and travel amount to over 40 per cent of the UK's total emissions so we all have a part to play."
The survey coincides with the EST's "Emission Impossible, a vision for a low carbon lifestyle by 2050."EST, set up to help people to kick their carbon habit, wants more home power generation, smart meters in homes to help cut power consumption, less water wastage, more reuse and recycling and more emphasis on efficient appliances.
"Our report outlines the Energy Saving Trust's vision for achieving a low-carbon lifestyle by 2050 where we meet our 80 per cent reduction targets without adopting austere lifestyles or making unpleasant personal sacrifices," Sellwood said.
Source
Fathers' day on the way to being banned
If Scotland is a bellwether
Christian references have been removed from Christmas cards and school sports days excised of competitiveness. Now Father's Day has become the latest event to fall victim to the forces of political correctness. Last week thousands of children were prevented from making Father’s Day cards at school to avoid causing embarrassment to classmates who live with single mothers and lesbian couples. The politically correct policy in the interests of “sensitivity” over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households, has been quietly adopted by schools across Scotland.
It only emerged this year after a large number of fathers failed to receive their traditional cards and gifts last Sunday. While primary children are banned from making cards for their fathers, few schools impose similar restrictions in the run up to Mothering Sunday. The ban has been introduced by schools in Glasgow, Edinburgh, East Renfrewshire, Dumfries and Galloway and Clackmannanshire. Currently, some 280,000 children in Scotland live in single parent households, accounting for just 7% of the total.
Tina Woolnough, 45, from Edinburgh, whose son Felix attends Blackhall primary, said a number of teachers at the school had not allowed children to make Father’s Day cards this year. “This is something I know they do on a class-by-class basis at my son Felix’s school,” said Woolnough, who is a member of the school’s parent-teacher council. Some classes send Father’s Day cards and some do not. “The teachers are aware of the family circumstances of the children in each class and if a child hasn’t got a father living at home, the teacher will avoid getting the children to make a card.”
Family rights campaigners have condemned the policy as “absurd” and claimed it is marginalising fathers. “I’m astonished at this, it totally undermines the role and significance of fathers whether they are still with the child’s mother or not,” said Matt O’Connor, founder of Fathers For Justice. “It also sends out a troubling message to young boys that fathers aren’t important.”
Alastair Noble, education officer with the charity Christian Action, Research and Education, added: “This seems to be an extreme and somewhat absurd reaction. I would have thought that the traditional family and marriage are still the majority lifestyles of people in Scotland. To deny the experience of the majority just does not seem sensible.”
Victoria Gillick, the family values campaigner, accused schools of politicising a traditional fun activity for children. “Children like making things, and making things for someone is great fun. I wouldn’t call it politically correct, I’d just call it stupid,” she said. “It seems quite unfair to deny those children whose parents are together and who want to make cards from enjoying the experience. Stopping children from making Father’s Day cards is reinforcing the fact that some fathers are not there, it’s actually drawing attention to the issue.”
Local authorities defended the move, saying teachers needed to act sensitively at a time when many children were experiencing family breakdown and divorce. “Increasingly, it is the case that there are children who haven’t got fathers or haven’t got fathers living with them and teachers are having to be sensitive about this,” said a spokesman for East Renfrewshire council. “Teachers have always had to deal with some pupils not having fathers or mothers, but with marital breakdown it is accelerating.”
Jim Goodall, head of education at Clackmannanshire council, said: “We expect teachers and headteachers to apply their professional skills and behave in a common sense manner. They have to be sensitive to the appropriate use of class time and the changing pattern of family life. We trust our staff to act sensibly and sensitively." A spokesman for South Ayrshire council said: “We are aware of the sensitivities of the issue and wouldn’t do anything that would make any child feel left out or unwanted in any way.” Edinburgh city council said the practice on Father’s Day cards was a matter for individual schools.
Source
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Social mobility disappeared along with selective schools
"Comprehensives" were supposed to bring equality. They did the opposite
It's a puzzle how Gordon Brown manages to maintain the aura of a serious intellectual. He clearly reads widely. But so, too, do my nephews, albeit books with shorter words. The problem lies not with his ability to read but to draw the correct conclusions. His speech yesterday on social mobility is a case in point - a weird mix of platitudes and outright nonsense. Parents should want their children to do better than they did themselves. Wow. What an insight. And this "cannot be achieved without people themselves adopting the work ethic, the learning ethic and aiming high... We must set a national priority to aggressively and relentlessly develop the potential of the British people." It's difficult to imagine a priority aggressively and relentlessly to hold back the potential of the British people.
The difficulties start when he talks in more than platitudes. Yesterday's speech was predicated on the notion that, while he had been fortunate to be "a child of the first great wave of postwar social mobility", there was then a "lost generation" of "Thatcher's children" who were denied the chance to progress. Mr Brown is right to talk about the reversal in social mobility that took place in the last century. But he is about as far from the truth as it is possible to imagine in describing its cause. Margaret Thatcher did not create the problem; she inherited it.
A 1996 study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed what strikes most people instinctively: education is the great engine of social mobility. "There is a clear correlation between high mobility up the income distribution and a high level of educational attainment. Non-movers are almost five times as likely to have no qualifications as big movers; at the other end of the scale, big movers are more than seven times as likely to have A levels or better than non-movers are." And with the educational opportunities laid out in Rab Butler's 1944 Education Act, which enshrined the tripartite system of grammar, technical and secondary modern schools, increasingly it was no longer true that where you were born on the social scale determined where you ended up.
As Churchill said to the boys of his alma mater, Harrow School, in 1940: "When this war is won... it must be one of our aims to establish a state of society when the advantages and privileges which have hitherto been enjoyed by the few shall be more widely shared by the many, and by the youth of the nation as a whole."
And this started to happen: the proportion of public-school-educated undergraduates at Oxford was, for instance, on a steady downward path after the Second World War. In 1946 65 per cent of male students were from independent schools. By 1967 only 53 per cent of male students were from public schools. The pattern was even clearer with women, the share falling from 57 per cent of arts undergraduates in 1946 to 39 per cent in 1967. For all the problems with technical and secondary modern schools, grammar schools did a fine job of lifting children out of poverty and into opportunity. Yet today, our comprehensive system has one of the worst rankings in the developed world.
Education was seen by the advocates of comprehensive schools "as a serious alternative to nationalisation in promoting a more just and efficient society" (as Tony Crosland, who would not rest until he had "destroyed every f***ing grammar school", put it). But this was Grade A drivel. Class divisions were made worse, not better. Now those who can afford to do so leave the state system for private education or move to a middle-class catchment area. The rest are stuck with what they are served up. As A.H.Halsey, an adviser to Crosland and one of the leading egalitarian theorists of the 1960s, put it: "The essential fact of 20th-century educational history is that egalitarian policies have failed."
The speed of the process was astonishing. In the late 1960s the state grammar schools and quasi-state direct grant schools easily outclassed the independent sector in terms of academic output. The next decade saw both these meritocratic pillars of the state school system collapse. In 1971 35 per cent of all state schools were comprehensive; in 1981 the figure was 90 per cent, and almost all the direct grant schools had joined the private sector. In destroying the direct grant schools on the altar of equal opportunity, the 1974-79 Labour Government succeeded only in denying opportunity to many poor children.
Mr Brown is right to emphasise the imperative of social mobility. But until he stops speaking in platitudes and starts understanding what has gone wrong, he will never be able to put anything right.
Source
Green driving
British humorist and motoring writer Jeremy Clarkson tells us how
It's no good. I can't sit here any more pretending that there's nothing wrong. Because there is. A man came to my house yesterday to fix the computer and he had a worried look on his face. He lives 20 miles away. The fuel tank in his little van was perilously close to empty and he simply didn't have enough money to fill it up again.
In the past I only ever stopped for fuel when the yellow light had been on for a month and the engine was starting to cough. Yesterday I stopped at a garage simply because its petrol was 4p cheaper than usual. That's a œ2.80 difference per tankful. Which works out at œ300 a year. That's 55 free packets of cigarettes.
Except of course these calculations are meaningless because oil, as I write, is $139 a barrel and no one thinks it's going to stop there. Not with Mr Patel on the economic warpath and Johnny Chinaman part-exchanging his rickshaw for a shiny new Toyota. They say it'll be $150 a barrel by the end of summer.
Global warming was never going to get people out of their big cars because we could see it was all a load of left-wing tosh. But when petrol is œ3 a litre - and anyone old enough to remember 1973 would not discount that as a possibility - you'd have to be a bit bonkers to drive around like your hair's on fire in a car that does only eight miles to the gallon.
Oh it's all very well now. You may be a footballer or a Sir Alan. You may see expensive petrol as a jolly good way of getting the poor and the weak off the roads. Soon, though, you will be hit too.
Think about it. When you have to have a fist fight with an old lady over the last loaf of bread in the shop, and your electricity bill looks as though it's been written in liras, you are going to find yourself in the same boat as my computer man: with a nice car on the drive and no wherewithal to make it go.
Of course there are lots of things you can do to lessen the impact of spiralling fuel bills - all of which are dreary.
Weight is one issue. If you remove that rolled-up old carpet from your boot, you'll be surprised at the impact it'll have on your bills. You could go further and remove your spare wheel and jack too. Maybe you could even go on that diet you've been promising yourself.
Then there's all the equipment. If you use a lot of electrical stuff while driving, the alternator will need to work harder, which means more fuel. Even Terry Wogan needs a bit of petrol. Your heated rear window needs an alarming amount. And air-conditioning? Turn that off and your fuel consumption will improve by as much as 12%.
Making sure that your tyres are inflated properly will save another 5%, and you know the roof bars? If you can manage without, there's another 3% saving right there. At this rate you are well on your way to turning your Range Rover Sport Nutter Bastard into something with the thirst of a newborn wren.
By far the biggest savings will come if you change the way you drive, though. Take the Audi A8 diesel as an example. Officially it will do 30.1mpg. Realistically it'll be nearer 25. With a bit of care, however, you can do 40. Maybe more.
Audi says that its big V8 oil-burner can go 580 miles between trips to the pumps but I managed to get all the way from London to Edinburgh and then back again on a single tankful. That's a whopping 800 miles. It wasn't much fun, at a fairly constant 56mph, with no radio, no air-con and no sat nav. But the savings were massive.
Things I learnt? On a downhill stretch, ease up on the throttle pedal and work with gravity to build up speed. Similarly you can ease off the power and use momentum to get you up the next hill. A cruise control system will not do this. It is a sledgehammer when what you need is the scalpel sensitivity of your right foot.
Look far ahead. If you think you will have to slow down, start the process early. If you use the brakes you are simply wasting the fuel you used to reach a speed that was unnecessary.
Already I'm bored with this. The notion that you have to drive at 56mph, with sweaty armpits, stopping every five seconds to check your tyre pressures, just to save a pound fills me with horror and dread. It would be like being told to lose weight by your doctor - and sawing your arm off. Effective but annoying. Which is why, when it comes to the price of fuel, I want to have my cake and eat it too. And then I want second helpings.
This brings me to the Mercedes-Benz SL 350. Ordinarily I'd dismiss this, the baby of the range, and suggest you bought the mountainous twin-turbo 6 litre V12 version instead. But in these dark and difficult times, I thought I'd give the weedomatic version a chance.
The fact of the matter is this. Officially the V12 version will return 18.7mpg whereas the 350 will do 28.5. That is a colossal difference. And handy too. On my old SL 55, a quarter of a tank would not get me from London to my house in the Cotswolds. A quarter of a tank in the 350 gets me there and back.
Source
IVF safe
Women who want to postpone motherhood to establish a career or find the right partner have been given new hope by research that shows the safety of an advanced egg-freezing technique. The most exhaustive study yet of children born after the freezing procedure found that they appeared to be as healthy as those conceived normally or by IVF, paving the way for its widespread use.
Specialists said that the research, into a method known as vitrification, promises to lift the main barrier to routine egg freezing. While dozens of British women have already done this to preserve their fertility, medical groups had advised against it outside clinical trials because of limited evidence of its safety. The study, led by Ri-Cheng Chian, of McGill University, in Montreal, Canada, assessed the outcomes of 200 children born from vitrified eggs. It found that the rate of birth defects was 2.5 per cent, which is comparable to natural pregnancies and IVF.
Dr Chian told The Times: "I have two daughters. If they wanted to preserve their fertility because they were 35 and not married, I would say, yes, they should use this technique. Even if they were 20 or 25 and wanted to use it for social reasons, I would recommend going ahead. We cannot yet say it is 100 per cent safe, but we are starting to amass good evidence that it is not risky so far as we can tell. "The American Society for Reproductive Medicine says egg freezing for social reasons should happen only in clinical trials, because there isn't enough information yet, but I think that is soon going to have to change."
Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services, which offers egg freezing in Britain, said: "This is the sort of evidence we have all been seeking. I think in time it will come to be seen as positively perverse to refuse to allow women to have the chance to establish pregnancies with their own frozen eggs." She said that frozen eggs stored when women were in their twenties or thirties might eventually be shown to reduce the rate of birth abnormalities beyond that seen in the McGill study, which is published in the journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online. Such defects become more of a risk when older women conceive with their own fresh eggs.
Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said that the society did not have a firm policy on egg freezing for social reasons. "A single study isn't enough, but if more data like this emerges we would be more relaxed about it," he said.
While it has long been possible to freeze sperm and embryos for use in fertility treatment years later, it has taken much longer to achieve this routinely for eggs. The prospects of wider use have recently been enhanced by the development of vitrification, which involves flash-freezing eggs after special preparation. Up to 95 per cent of vitrified eggs survive the thawing process, compared with 50 to 60 per cent of those preserved by older slow-freezing techniques. Pregnancy rates for vitrification can be as good as for IVF with fresh eggs.
These advances may encourage more women to freeze eggs as a way of preserving their fertility, which starts to decline steeply when from the mid-thirties. Several British clinics offer women in their twenties and thirties the option of storing their eggs, and more than 100 have done so.
Source
Railways inadequate in the home of railways: "Passengers face acute overcrowding on key railway routes because capacity will be exhausted many years before any new lines could be built, according to Network Rail. The infrastructure company is to commission a study into the costs and benefits of new lines on five inter-city routes. But it admitted that a high-speed network was unlikely to be built soon because of funding constraints and environmental concerns. The company is expected to focus on a few short stretches of track operating at conventional speed to relieve the worst pinch points on long-distance routes, including London to Peterborough, Rugby and Swindon. Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Network Rail, said that the Government's plan for expanding rail capacity by 22.5 per cent by 2014 would be inadequate on some routes, which are growing by 10 per cent a year. He said: "Clearly some routes will grow more than that and there may be a problem. The most congested parts of the network are about 80 miles out of London. People used to be prepared to travel for 45 minutes and now it's an hour and a quarter." The high cost of housing in London and fuel prices were two of the factors contributing to the continuing strong growth in demand for rail travel."
"Comprehensives" were supposed to bring equality. They did the opposite
It's a puzzle how Gordon Brown manages to maintain the aura of a serious intellectual. He clearly reads widely. But so, too, do my nephews, albeit books with shorter words. The problem lies not with his ability to read but to draw the correct conclusions. His speech yesterday on social mobility is a case in point - a weird mix of platitudes and outright nonsense. Parents should want their children to do better than they did themselves. Wow. What an insight. And this "cannot be achieved without people themselves adopting the work ethic, the learning ethic and aiming high... We must set a national priority to aggressively and relentlessly develop the potential of the British people." It's difficult to imagine a priority aggressively and relentlessly to hold back the potential of the British people.
The difficulties start when he talks in more than platitudes. Yesterday's speech was predicated on the notion that, while he had been fortunate to be "a child of the first great wave of postwar social mobility", there was then a "lost generation" of "Thatcher's children" who were denied the chance to progress. Mr Brown is right to talk about the reversal in social mobility that took place in the last century. But he is about as far from the truth as it is possible to imagine in describing its cause. Margaret Thatcher did not create the problem; she inherited it.
A 1996 study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed what strikes most people instinctively: education is the great engine of social mobility. "There is a clear correlation between high mobility up the income distribution and a high level of educational attainment. Non-movers are almost five times as likely to have no qualifications as big movers; at the other end of the scale, big movers are more than seven times as likely to have A levels or better than non-movers are." And with the educational opportunities laid out in Rab Butler's 1944 Education Act, which enshrined the tripartite system of grammar, technical and secondary modern schools, increasingly it was no longer true that where you were born on the social scale determined where you ended up.
As Churchill said to the boys of his alma mater, Harrow School, in 1940: "When this war is won... it must be one of our aims to establish a state of society when the advantages and privileges which have hitherto been enjoyed by the few shall be more widely shared by the many, and by the youth of the nation as a whole."
And this started to happen: the proportion of public-school-educated undergraduates at Oxford was, for instance, on a steady downward path after the Second World War. In 1946 65 per cent of male students were from independent schools. By 1967 only 53 per cent of male students were from public schools. The pattern was even clearer with women, the share falling from 57 per cent of arts undergraduates in 1946 to 39 per cent in 1967. For all the problems with technical and secondary modern schools, grammar schools did a fine job of lifting children out of poverty and into opportunity. Yet today, our comprehensive system has one of the worst rankings in the developed world.
Education was seen by the advocates of comprehensive schools "as a serious alternative to nationalisation in promoting a more just and efficient society" (as Tony Crosland, who would not rest until he had "destroyed every f***ing grammar school", put it). But this was Grade A drivel. Class divisions were made worse, not better. Now those who can afford to do so leave the state system for private education or move to a middle-class catchment area. The rest are stuck with what they are served up. As A.H.Halsey, an adviser to Crosland and one of the leading egalitarian theorists of the 1960s, put it: "The essential fact of 20th-century educational history is that egalitarian policies have failed."
The speed of the process was astonishing. In the late 1960s the state grammar schools and quasi-state direct grant schools easily outclassed the independent sector in terms of academic output. The next decade saw both these meritocratic pillars of the state school system collapse. In 1971 35 per cent of all state schools were comprehensive; in 1981 the figure was 90 per cent, and almost all the direct grant schools had joined the private sector. In destroying the direct grant schools on the altar of equal opportunity, the 1974-79 Labour Government succeeded only in denying opportunity to many poor children.
Mr Brown is right to emphasise the imperative of social mobility. But until he stops speaking in platitudes and starts understanding what has gone wrong, he will never be able to put anything right.
Source
Green driving
British humorist and motoring writer Jeremy Clarkson tells us how
It's no good. I can't sit here any more pretending that there's nothing wrong. Because there is. A man came to my house yesterday to fix the computer and he had a worried look on his face. He lives 20 miles away. The fuel tank in his little van was perilously close to empty and he simply didn't have enough money to fill it up again.
In the past I only ever stopped for fuel when the yellow light had been on for a month and the engine was starting to cough. Yesterday I stopped at a garage simply because its petrol was 4p cheaper than usual. That's a œ2.80 difference per tankful. Which works out at œ300 a year. That's 55 free packets of cigarettes.
Except of course these calculations are meaningless because oil, as I write, is $139 a barrel and no one thinks it's going to stop there. Not with Mr Patel on the economic warpath and Johnny Chinaman part-exchanging his rickshaw for a shiny new Toyota. They say it'll be $150 a barrel by the end of summer.
Global warming was never going to get people out of their big cars because we could see it was all a load of left-wing tosh. But when petrol is œ3 a litre - and anyone old enough to remember 1973 would not discount that as a possibility - you'd have to be a bit bonkers to drive around like your hair's on fire in a car that does only eight miles to the gallon.
Oh it's all very well now. You may be a footballer or a Sir Alan. You may see expensive petrol as a jolly good way of getting the poor and the weak off the roads. Soon, though, you will be hit too.
Think about it. When you have to have a fist fight with an old lady over the last loaf of bread in the shop, and your electricity bill looks as though it's been written in liras, you are going to find yourself in the same boat as my computer man: with a nice car on the drive and no wherewithal to make it go.
Of course there are lots of things you can do to lessen the impact of spiralling fuel bills - all of which are dreary.
Weight is one issue. If you remove that rolled-up old carpet from your boot, you'll be surprised at the impact it'll have on your bills. You could go further and remove your spare wheel and jack too. Maybe you could even go on that diet you've been promising yourself.
Then there's all the equipment. If you use a lot of electrical stuff while driving, the alternator will need to work harder, which means more fuel. Even Terry Wogan needs a bit of petrol. Your heated rear window needs an alarming amount. And air-conditioning? Turn that off and your fuel consumption will improve by as much as 12%.
Making sure that your tyres are inflated properly will save another 5%, and you know the roof bars? If you can manage without, there's another 3% saving right there. At this rate you are well on your way to turning your Range Rover Sport Nutter Bastard into something with the thirst of a newborn wren.
By far the biggest savings will come if you change the way you drive, though. Take the Audi A8 diesel as an example. Officially it will do 30.1mpg. Realistically it'll be nearer 25. With a bit of care, however, you can do 40. Maybe more.
Audi says that its big V8 oil-burner can go 580 miles between trips to the pumps but I managed to get all the way from London to Edinburgh and then back again on a single tankful. That's a whopping 800 miles. It wasn't much fun, at a fairly constant 56mph, with no radio, no air-con and no sat nav. But the savings were massive.
Things I learnt? On a downhill stretch, ease up on the throttle pedal and work with gravity to build up speed. Similarly you can ease off the power and use momentum to get you up the next hill. A cruise control system will not do this. It is a sledgehammer when what you need is the scalpel sensitivity of your right foot.
Look far ahead. If you think you will have to slow down, start the process early. If you use the brakes you are simply wasting the fuel you used to reach a speed that was unnecessary.
Already I'm bored with this. The notion that you have to drive at 56mph, with sweaty armpits, stopping every five seconds to check your tyre pressures, just to save a pound fills me with horror and dread. It would be like being told to lose weight by your doctor - and sawing your arm off. Effective but annoying. Which is why, when it comes to the price of fuel, I want to have my cake and eat it too. And then I want second helpings.
This brings me to the Mercedes-Benz SL 350. Ordinarily I'd dismiss this, the baby of the range, and suggest you bought the mountainous twin-turbo 6 litre V12 version instead. But in these dark and difficult times, I thought I'd give the weedomatic version a chance.
The fact of the matter is this. Officially the V12 version will return 18.7mpg whereas the 350 will do 28.5. That is a colossal difference. And handy too. On my old SL 55, a quarter of a tank would not get me from London to my house in the Cotswolds. A quarter of a tank in the 350 gets me there and back.
Source
IVF safe
Women who want to postpone motherhood to establish a career or find the right partner have been given new hope by research that shows the safety of an advanced egg-freezing technique. The most exhaustive study yet of children born after the freezing procedure found that they appeared to be as healthy as those conceived normally or by IVF, paving the way for its widespread use.
Specialists said that the research, into a method known as vitrification, promises to lift the main barrier to routine egg freezing. While dozens of British women have already done this to preserve their fertility, medical groups had advised against it outside clinical trials because of limited evidence of its safety. The study, led by Ri-Cheng Chian, of McGill University, in Montreal, Canada, assessed the outcomes of 200 children born from vitrified eggs. It found that the rate of birth defects was 2.5 per cent, which is comparable to natural pregnancies and IVF.
Dr Chian told The Times: "I have two daughters. If they wanted to preserve their fertility because they were 35 and not married, I would say, yes, they should use this technique. Even if they were 20 or 25 and wanted to use it for social reasons, I would recommend going ahead. We cannot yet say it is 100 per cent safe, but we are starting to amass good evidence that it is not risky so far as we can tell. "The American Society for Reproductive Medicine says egg freezing for social reasons should happen only in clinical trials, because there isn't enough information yet, but I think that is soon going to have to change."
Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services, which offers egg freezing in Britain, said: "This is the sort of evidence we have all been seeking. I think in time it will come to be seen as positively perverse to refuse to allow women to have the chance to establish pregnancies with their own frozen eggs." She said that frozen eggs stored when women were in their twenties or thirties might eventually be shown to reduce the rate of birth abnormalities beyond that seen in the McGill study, which is published in the journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online. Such defects become more of a risk when older women conceive with their own fresh eggs.
Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said that the society did not have a firm policy on egg freezing for social reasons. "A single study isn't enough, but if more data like this emerges we would be more relaxed about it," he said.
While it has long been possible to freeze sperm and embryos for use in fertility treatment years later, it has taken much longer to achieve this routinely for eggs. The prospects of wider use have recently been enhanced by the development of vitrification, which involves flash-freezing eggs after special preparation. Up to 95 per cent of vitrified eggs survive the thawing process, compared with 50 to 60 per cent of those preserved by older slow-freezing techniques. Pregnancy rates for vitrification can be as good as for IVF with fresh eggs.
These advances may encourage more women to freeze eggs as a way of preserving their fertility, which starts to decline steeply when from the mid-thirties. Several British clinics offer women in their twenties and thirties the option of storing their eggs, and more than 100 have done so.
Source
Railways inadequate in the home of railways: "Passengers face acute overcrowding on key railway routes because capacity will be exhausted many years before any new lines could be built, according to Network Rail. The infrastructure company is to commission a study into the costs and benefits of new lines on five inter-city routes. But it admitted that a high-speed network was unlikely to be built soon because of funding constraints and environmental concerns. The company is expected to focus on a few short stretches of track operating at conventional speed to relieve the worst pinch points on long-distance routes, including London to Peterborough, Rugby and Swindon. Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Network Rail, said that the Government's plan for expanding rail capacity by 22.5 per cent by 2014 would be inadequate on some routes, which are growing by 10 per cent a year. He said: "Clearly some routes will grow more than that and there may be a problem. The most congested parts of the network are about 80 miles out of London. People used to be prepared to travel for 45 minutes and now it's an hour and a quarter." The high cost of housing in London and fuel prices were two of the factors contributing to the continuing strong growth in demand for rail travel."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
You cannot be too careful in talking about blacks
We read:
If he had been talking about Americans instead of blacks he would have been applauded.
British doctors dubious about new treatment protocols
Nurses doing surgery?? I think I'd be dubious too
The minister in charge of a review of the NHS has accused some doctors of being “laggards” for obstructing the introduction of new treatments. Lord Darzi, who continues to work as a surgeon, says some senior medical staff are so determined to protect “professional boundaries” that, 14 years after his own practice began using nurses to do minor surgery, others have yet to follow.
He said: “In all areas of healthcare you have innovators, people who really want to change things for the better, and you also have, in other areas of the healthcare system, people who are lagging behind and need to catch up. “They will eventually catch up once they know that, if you start thinking about what really matters to patients, how you can improve the care you provide, you get over all these different obstacles.”
Darzi, who has been in bitter conflict with doctors over the introduction of polyclinics, is backed by Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer. This weekend, Donaldson accused some surgeons of obstructing changes that would make operations safer because they objected to their “professional autonomy” being eroded. He said: “The culture of medicine has been one of clinical autonomy. Doctors are trained to take decisions, to feel they are in charge, to lead teams. They want to do what they feel is best and anything that suggests that they should standardise their practice in any way is sometimes seen as degrading of their professional ethos.”
Donaldson, who as chairman of the World Health Organisation world alliance for patient safety will this week launch an airline-style danger checklist for surgeons, added that one British doctor told him such checks would reduce consultants to “factory workers”. Donaldson said: “I was talking about a way in which standard operating procedures are used in the airline industry and he said: ‘Well, if you bring that into medicine, we might as well go and work in factories.’ “I think it is a new idea for some traditional people holding traditional attitudes in medicine and I think we need to break those down and get people thinking and learning from other industries.”
Darzi, who will publish his review on the NHS at the end of this month, also says doctors and nurses must treat patients as customers. He says that if patients don’t like the quality of care they are receiving they should go elsewhere. His report will include proposals to routinely invite patients to grade the quality of nursing care they receive during their hospital stay, including how comfortable they were made to feel on the ward and if they were treated in a kind and compassionate manner. Results of these questionnaires will be published so that patients can shop around for the hospital with the most compassionate nursing care.
Darzi, who still practises his keyhole surgery specialism two days a week at St Mary’s Hospital in London, said he recently had a patient who requested a referral to his unit from outside its catchment area. He said more details of the most advanced surgery will be made available to patients as part of his review. This will make it easier for patients to find out where the latest technology is used.
Darzi said: “Have patients been treated as customers? When you go to a restaurant you look at a website and find out exactly what people said about that restaurant. In future I want to show which hospitals, doctors and nurses are actually bringing innovation into their healthcare.” Darzi is to set up a new website featuring all the latest innovations in medicine to encourage hospitals to adopt new treatments more quickly.
Source
British equality bill to ban age barriers.
More British wackiness. Fools step in where angels fear to tread
Elderly people would have the right to join youth clubs or go on 18-30 cruises under new equality legislation to be introduced this week. Ministers are to give pensioners new protection against age discrimination. The law would stop insurance companies, 95% of which impose an upper age limit, refusing life insurance or holiday cover to senior citizens or charging more on the basis of their age.
The new law would give teenagers the right to join clubs that have traditionally been the preserve of the elderly, while middle-aged clubbers could not be refused entry to a nightclub on the basis of age alone.
Gordon Lishman, director-general of Age Concern, said: "People are often surprised to learn that ageism is the most commonly experienced prejudice in the UK. But both young and old find they come up against barriers created by their age. People over a certain age pay a huge premium on insurance just because of their age. They can also be denied certain types of health treatment because doctors don't think it is worth treating them. This is unfair and unjust."
The Single Equality Bill will also offer new protection to gays and ethnic minorities. Public bodies will have a duty to promote equality while schools will have to develop strategies to prevent gay bullying.
The bill is expected to stop short of demanding that companies introduce compulsory pay audits that would reveal whether men and women of equal experience and seniority are paid the same, after opposition from business. Less stringent measures to improve transparency on equal pay are to be introduced.
Source
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer. The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes.
In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.
'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'
In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change. Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.
More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.
Source
Kids should learn to be tough
"Happiness lessons" that are used in many schools to teach children to be sensitive, empathetic and caring are under threat from a new hardline approach that advocates mental toughness. Academics say that instilling a robust attitude among pupils can improve their exam performance, behaviour and aspirations dramatically. Mentally tough children are less likely to regard themselves as victims of bullying and will not be deterred by initial failure. Having this outlook can be learnt, according to Peter Clough, head of psychology at the University of Hull.
Along with AQR, a psychometric-testing company, he is conducting a long-term study of children and evaluating their mental toughness. His ideas - based on sports psychology - have been used in industry. Dr Clough claims that a simple test and follow-up techniques can transform performance. He said: "We know that students with higher levels of mental toughness perform better in exams. They are also less likely to perceive themselves as being bullied and are more likely to behave more positively. "We also know that by using a variety of techniques - many of them very simple - we can increase an individual's level of mental toughness."
Dr Clough is working with 181 pupils aged 11 and 12 at All Saints Catholic High School in Knowsley, Merseyside. He will help to make them mentally tough and hopes this will "open doors of opportunities that they would not previously have considered". Parents and teachers are also being shown the intervention techniques.
Dr Clough said: "There is no point in working with pupils who then go into a classroom environment where nobody understands the process, and home to parents who have no interest. Showing the teachers how the techniques work means that the benefits that pupils are getting from this study can be repeated year after year."
Dr Clough and his team measured the levels of resilience and emotional sensitivity of pupils using a questionnaire. They then picked almost 40 pupils with low scores. They are now using techniques to improve their rating, such as visualisation, anxiety control and relaxation, improving their attention span and setting goals.
It comes a week after two academics said the emphasis on Seal (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) was "infantilising" students. Dennis Hayes and Kathryn Ecclestone, of Oxford Brookes University, said that teenagers were encouraged to talk about their emotions at the expense of acquiring knowledge. This left them unable to cope on their own. They pointed to the increased presence of parents on campus, and of counsellors and support officers, saying that "everyone was looking for a disability to declare".
Dr Clough said that he helped children to set realistic goals and used techniques that worked rapidly. These include imagining scenarios and random-number tests that forced them to concentrate. He said: "Really concentrating is a skill a lot of them have never had. We try to get them to realise they are in control of their lives and need to stick a foot in the door when they get the opportunity. No one else is going to make that decision. "They don't recognise that people who are successful sometimes have less ability but more drive. They are drawn to a 'shortcut culture' of instant success and dream of winning The X Factor, but don't see that you need to practise before auditions."
Of happiness lessons, which aim to boost self-esteem, Dr Clough said: "All the positive thinking in the world isn't going to make a third look like a 2:1."
Source
Archbishop Jensen defends keepers of the Bible
Note that unlike "modernists" such as Spong, His Grace does not need to wear a pectoral cross etc. in order to reinforce his Christian identity
SYDNEY'S Anglican Archbishop, Peter Jensen, has defended a breakaway conference of church leaders in Jerusalem as the true keepers of the authority of the Bible. In an interview with the Herald before the opening yesterday of a conference of 1000 conservative Anglican leaders from 27 countries - including 280 bishops - Dr Jensen described the formal separation of the church into conservative and liberal groupings as a tragedy. The split has emerged since the ordination in the United States five years ago of the openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson.
"We're not dealing with the secular world here. We're dealing with the Christian church, and the Christian church has a constitution which is the Bible," Dr Jensen said. "Now the difficulty here is for a person to claim to belong to the Christian church while at the same time breaching the constitution. It's as if you're a member of a clan and you decide to break the rules of a club. That's understandable to the man on the street, surely."
While he remained committed to the Anglican Church - and refuses to describe the present situation as a split - Dr Jensen said the church would not reunite until the divisions over human sexuality were resolved. "I am passionately committed to being Anglican. I respect very much Christians from other denominations and I don't think being Anglican is the greatest thing in the world, but I believe in it and our intention is not to leave the Anglican Communion," he said. "There is no reason why we should leave the Anglican Church because we have not shifted. It is others who have shifted. We are committed to the Anglican church and want to see it do as well as it possibly can."
Dr Jensen said he would not attend the Lambeth Conference, the gathering of Anglican leaders called by the Archbishop of Canterbury in England next month. "I have decided, as have a number of leading bishops, particularly from Africa, that no, we're going attend this conference alone while this crisis remains unresolved. In the meantime we'll be here and we're working on what the future is going to look like," he said.
Dr Jensen said gay men and women had no reason to feel discriminated against by the stance he had taken on human sexuality. "Furthermore, we strongly abhor any violence or unjust discrimination towards those kinds of people in the community," he said.
Source
We read:
"An Australian political adviser to London Lord Mayor Boris Johnson has been forced to resign over a racism scandal.
James McGrath was accused of suggesting black people should ``go home'' if they did not like the new Mayor.
Responding to claims Caribbean immigrants could leave the UK if Mr Johnson was elected, Mr McGrath said: ``Let them go if they don't like it here.''
Source
If he had been talking about Americans instead of blacks he would have been applauded.
British doctors dubious about new treatment protocols
Nurses doing surgery?? I think I'd be dubious too
The minister in charge of a review of the NHS has accused some doctors of being “laggards” for obstructing the introduction of new treatments. Lord Darzi, who continues to work as a surgeon, says some senior medical staff are so determined to protect “professional boundaries” that, 14 years after his own practice began using nurses to do minor surgery, others have yet to follow.
He said: “In all areas of healthcare you have innovators, people who really want to change things for the better, and you also have, in other areas of the healthcare system, people who are lagging behind and need to catch up. “They will eventually catch up once they know that, if you start thinking about what really matters to patients, how you can improve the care you provide, you get over all these different obstacles.”
Darzi, who has been in bitter conflict with doctors over the introduction of polyclinics, is backed by Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer. This weekend, Donaldson accused some surgeons of obstructing changes that would make operations safer because they objected to their “professional autonomy” being eroded. He said: “The culture of medicine has been one of clinical autonomy. Doctors are trained to take decisions, to feel they are in charge, to lead teams. They want to do what they feel is best and anything that suggests that they should standardise their practice in any way is sometimes seen as degrading of their professional ethos.”
Donaldson, who as chairman of the World Health Organisation world alliance for patient safety will this week launch an airline-style danger checklist for surgeons, added that one British doctor told him such checks would reduce consultants to “factory workers”. Donaldson said: “I was talking about a way in which standard operating procedures are used in the airline industry and he said: ‘Well, if you bring that into medicine, we might as well go and work in factories.’ “I think it is a new idea for some traditional people holding traditional attitudes in medicine and I think we need to break those down and get people thinking and learning from other industries.”
Darzi, who will publish his review on the NHS at the end of this month, also says doctors and nurses must treat patients as customers. He says that if patients don’t like the quality of care they are receiving they should go elsewhere. His report will include proposals to routinely invite patients to grade the quality of nursing care they receive during their hospital stay, including how comfortable they were made to feel on the ward and if they were treated in a kind and compassionate manner. Results of these questionnaires will be published so that patients can shop around for the hospital with the most compassionate nursing care.
Darzi, who still practises his keyhole surgery specialism two days a week at St Mary’s Hospital in London, said he recently had a patient who requested a referral to his unit from outside its catchment area. He said more details of the most advanced surgery will be made available to patients as part of his review. This will make it easier for patients to find out where the latest technology is used.
Darzi said: “Have patients been treated as customers? When you go to a restaurant you look at a website and find out exactly what people said about that restaurant. In future I want to show which hospitals, doctors and nurses are actually bringing innovation into their healthcare.” Darzi is to set up a new website featuring all the latest innovations in medicine to encourage hospitals to adopt new treatments more quickly.
Source
British equality bill to ban age barriers.
More British wackiness. Fools step in where angels fear to tread
Elderly people would have the right to join youth clubs or go on 18-30 cruises under new equality legislation to be introduced this week. Ministers are to give pensioners new protection against age discrimination. The law would stop insurance companies, 95% of which impose an upper age limit, refusing life insurance or holiday cover to senior citizens or charging more on the basis of their age.
The new law would give teenagers the right to join clubs that have traditionally been the preserve of the elderly, while middle-aged clubbers could not be refused entry to a nightclub on the basis of age alone.
Gordon Lishman, director-general of Age Concern, said: "People are often surprised to learn that ageism is the most commonly experienced prejudice in the UK. But both young and old find they come up against barriers created by their age. People over a certain age pay a huge premium on insurance just because of their age. They can also be denied certain types of health treatment because doctors don't think it is worth treating them. This is unfair and unjust."
The Single Equality Bill will also offer new protection to gays and ethnic minorities. Public bodies will have a duty to promote equality while schools will have to develop strategies to prevent gay bullying.
The bill is expected to stop short of demanding that companies introduce compulsory pay audits that would reveal whether men and women of equal experience and seniority are paid the same, after opposition from business. Less stringent measures to improve transparency on equal pay are to be introduced.
Source
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer. The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes.
In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.
'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'
In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change. Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.
More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.
Source
Kids should learn to be tough
"Happiness lessons" that are used in many schools to teach children to be sensitive, empathetic and caring are under threat from a new hardline approach that advocates mental toughness. Academics say that instilling a robust attitude among pupils can improve their exam performance, behaviour and aspirations dramatically. Mentally tough children are less likely to regard themselves as victims of bullying and will not be deterred by initial failure. Having this outlook can be learnt, according to Peter Clough, head of psychology at the University of Hull.
Along with AQR, a psychometric-testing company, he is conducting a long-term study of children and evaluating their mental toughness. His ideas - based on sports psychology - have been used in industry. Dr Clough claims that a simple test and follow-up techniques can transform performance. He said: "We know that students with higher levels of mental toughness perform better in exams. They are also less likely to perceive themselves as being bullied and are more likely to behave more positively. "We also know that by using a variety of techniques - many of them very simple - we can increase an individual's level of mental toughness."
Dr Clough is working with 181 pupils aged 11 and 12 at All Saints Catholic High School in Knowsley, Merseyside. He will help to make them mentally tough and hopes this will "open doors of opportunities that they would not previously have considered". Parents and teachers are also being shown the intervention techniques.
Dr Clough said: "There is no point in working with pupils who then go into a classroom environment where nobody understands the process, and home to parents who have no interest. Showing the teachers how the techniques work means that the benefits that pupils are getting from this study can be repeated year after year."
Dr Clough and his team measured the levels of resilience and emotional sensitivity of pupils using a questionnaire. They then picked almost 40 pupils with low scores. They are now using techniques to improve their rating, such as visualisation, anxiety control and relaxation, improving their attention span and setting goals.
It comes a week after two academics said the emphasis on Seal (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) was "infantilising" students. Dennis Hayes and Kathryn Ecclestone, of Oxford Brookes University, said that teenagers were encouraged to talk about their emotions at the expense of acquiring knowledge. This left them unable to cope on their own. They pointed to the increased presence of parents on campus, and of counsellors and support officers, saying that "everyone was looking for a disability to declare".
Dr Clough said that he helped children to set realistic goals and used techniques that worked rapidly. These include imagining scenarios and random-number tests that forced them to concentrate. He said: "Really concentrating is a skill a lot of them have never had. We try to get them to realise they are in control of their lives and need to stick a foot in the door when they get the opportunity. No one else is going to make that decision. "They don't recognise that people who are successful sometimes have less ability but more drive. They are drawn to a 'shortcut culture' of instant success and dream of winning The X Factor, but don't see that you need to practise before auditions."
Of happiness lessons, which aim to boost self-esteem, Dr Clough said: "All the positive thinking in the world isn't going to make a third look like a 2:1."
Source
Archbishop Jensen defends keepers of the Bible
Note that unlike "modernists" such as Spong, His Grace does not need to wear a pectoral cross etc. in order to reinforce his Christian identity
SYDNEY'S Anglican Archbishop, Peter Jensen, has defended a breakaway conference of church leaders in Jerusalem as the true keepers of the authority of the Bible. In an interview with the Herald before the opening yesterday of a conference of 1000 conservative Anglican leaders from 27 countries - including 280 bishops - Dr Jensen described the formal separation of the church into conservative and liberal groupings as a tragedy. The split has emerged since the ordination in the United States five years ago of the openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson.
"We're not dealing with the secular world here. We're dealing with the Christian church, and the Christian church has a constitution which is the Bible," Dr Jensen said. "Now the difficulty here is for a person to claim to belong to the Christian church while at the same time breaching the constitution. It's as if you're a member of a clan and you decide to break the rules of a club. That's understandable to the man on the street, surely."
While he remained committed to the Anglican Church - and refuses to describe the present situation as a split - Dr Jensen said the church would not reunite until the divisions over human sexuality were resolved. "I am passionately committed to being Anglican. I respect very much Christians from other denominations and I don't think being Anglican is the greatest thing in the world, but I believe in it and our intention is not to leave the Anglican Communion," he said. "There is no reason why we should leave the Anglican Church because we have not shifted. It is others who have shifted. We are committed to the Anglican church and want to see it do as well as it possibly can."
Dr Jensen said he would not attend the Lambeth Conference, the gathering of Anglican leaders called by the Archbishop of Canterbury in England next month. "I have decided, as have a number of leading bishops, particularly from Africa, that no, we're going attend this conference alone while this crisis remains unresolved. In the meantime we'll be here and we're working on what the future is going to look like," he said.
Dr Jensen said gay men and women had no reason to feel discriminated against by the stance he had taken on human sexuality. "Furthermore, we strongly abhor any violence or unjust discrimination towards those kinds of people in the community," he said.
Source
Monday, June 23, 2008
Cancer pair win fight with NHS for top-up drugs
Two women suffering from cancer have won legal battles for the right to pay privately for life-prolonging drugs without having their National Health Service treatment withdrawn. Several hospital trusts have also broken ranks to allow dying patients to pay immediately for the additional drugs that their doctors have said they need.
The moves are a sign that the government’s ban on so-called co-payments is beginning to crumble. In the face of a campaign led by The Sunday Times, Alan Johnson, the health secretary, has already announced a review of the policy which is due to report in October.
Melissa Worth, a solicitor at the law firm Halliwells, who is representing eight patients fighting for the right to co-pay, said: “Many more NHS trusts are finding different ways of allowing patients to pay for cancer drugs. “The government has now publicly acknowledged there is a problem and people are realising that what is most important is that patients get the best possible care.”
Andrew Haldenby, director of the think tank Reform, which includes Doctors for Reform, a group of 1,000 doctors campaigning for change, said: “This is a victory for common sense. It has become clear that many doctors have rejected the bureaucratic rules of the NHS to act in the best interests of patients. They deserve praise for looking beyond the guidance to act in a way which shows the true values of medicine. These cases also show the government had to order a review as its position is unsustainable.”
One woman, who took legal action against Weston Area Health NHS Trust in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, has been told she can pay for Avastin, the bowel and breast cancer drug, in the hospital’s private wing while receiving the remainder of her care on an NHS ward. The trust, which runs Weston General hospital, said: “This patient is having complete treatment on the NHS and has chosen to purchase separate treatment as well. Because the hospital has a unit for private patients on site, it has been agreed that the patient can receive Avastin on that unit.”
Another woman, who has bowel cancer and is taking legal action against the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London, has been advised that she will also be able to pay for Avastin without being denied NHS care. The woman’s husband, who does not wish to be named, said the trust had told them it would not object, “provided we were not getting treatment in the private [wing] and on the NHS in the same episode of care, on the same visit. Effectively, we have won the right to pay.” The Royal Marsden has declined to comment on the case.
The Velindre NHS Trust in Cardiff faces a judicial review after refusing to allow a woman to buy a cancer drug.
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, ABM University NHS Trust in Bridgend and University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust are also allowing some of their NHS patients to pay for additional drugs.
Many dying patients are still being denied the chance to spend their savings on cancer drugs, however, because their trust plans to retain the ban until the government review ends. Sue Matthews, 57, a former physiotherapist from Buckinghamshire and the wife of an NHS orthopaedic surgeon, says this could be too late for her. Matthews, a mother of two with bowel cancer, wants to be able to pay for the drugs Avastin or Erbitux without losing her NHS care. She said: “It could all be too late for me. “If the government turned round now and said, ‘We realise it has been happening in other areas of the NHS and we are prepared to accept it now’, that might be of some use to me. But he [Alan Johnson] is just trying to placate people and for those in my position it doesn’t help at all. “Some of these reviews go on for years. I will be dead by then.”
Another cancer patient, Jonathan Chapple, a retired company chairman from Kingston, southwest London, was asked by an NHS trust to pay £55,000 upfront for all of his cancer care when he asked to top up with the drugs that doctors said would give him the best chance. Like Matthews, Chapple, 69, was told by doctors that Avastin or Erbitux, which are not routinely funded by the NHS, were most likely to extend his life. His oncologist at the Royal Marsden told him that he could not continue to receive NHS care while paying for the drugs, however, and he was advised to transfer to the hospital’s private wing. Chapple said: “Having paid all my life for NHS services, to be put in this position feels immoral.” He is now travelling to a private clinic in Germany for treatment.
The Royal Marsden said: “In line with all private providers, we do ask for a deposit upfront and this is judged on the individual patient and their treatment pathway.”
Source
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
The correlation is undoubted but the reason why is the interesting part. That more intelligent people are far more likely to be exposed to the Leftist and anti-religious attitudes that prevail in the academy is certainly a large part of the explanation. But why is the academy Leftist? It was not always so. The great universities were mostly religious organizations originally. It is the influence of Leftism. From the French revolution on, Leftists have always resented any authority other than themselves
Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average. A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.
But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics. Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else. A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers. A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.
Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts. He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God." He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.
But Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors. "Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.
Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment".
Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions."
Source
Two women suffering from cancer have won legal battles for the right to pay privately for life-prolonging drugs without having their National Health Service treatment withdrawn. Several hospital trusts have also broken ranks to allow dying patients to pay immediately for the additional drugs that their doctors have said they need.
The moves are a sign that the government’s ban on so-called co-payments is beginning to crumble. In the face of a campaign led by The Sunday Times, Alan Johnson, the health secretary, has already announced a review of the policy which is due to report in October.
Melissa Worth, a solicitor at the law firm Halliwells, who is representing eight patients fighting for the right to co-pay, said: “Many more NHS trusts are finding different ways of allowing patients to pay for cancer drugs. “The government has now publicly acknowledged there is a problem and people are realising that what is most important is that patients get the best possible care.”
Andrew Haldenby, director of the think tank Reform, which includes Doctors for Reform, a group of 1,000 doctors campaigning for change, said: “This is a victory for common sense. It has become clear that many doctors have rejected the bureaucratic rules of the NHS to act in the best interests of patients. They deserve praise for looking beyond the guidance to act in a way which shows the true values of medicine. These cases also show the government had to order a review as its position is unsustainable.”
One woman, who took legal action against Weston Area Health NHS Trust in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, has been told she can pay for Avastin, the bowel and breast cancer drug, in the hospital’s private wing while receiving the remainder of her care on an NHS ward. The trust, which runs Weston General hospital, said: “This patient is having complete treatment on the NHS and has chosen to purchase separate treatment as well. Because the hospital has a unit for private patients on site, it has been agreed that the patient can receive Avastin on that unit.”
Another woman, who has bowel cancer and is taking legal action against the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London, has been advised that she will also be able to pay for Avastin without being denied NHS care. The woman’s husband, who does not wish to be named, said the trust had told them it would not object, “provided we were not getting treatment in the private [wing] and on the NHS in the same episode of care, on the same visit. Effectively, we have won the right to pay.” The Royal Marsden has declined to comment on the case.
The Velindre NHS Trust in Cardiff faces a judicial review after refusing to allow a woman to buy a cancer drug.
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, ABM University NHS Trust in Bridgend and University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust are also allowing some of their NHS patients to pay for additional drugs.
Many dying patients are still being denied the chance to spend their savings on cancer drugs, however, because their trust plans to retain the ban until the government review ends. Sue Matthews, 57, a former physiotherapist from Buckinghamshire and the wife of an NHS orthopaedic surgeon, says this could be too late for her. Matthews, a mother of two with bowel cancer, wants to be able to pay for the drugs Avastin or Erbitux without losing her NHS care. She said: “It could all be too late for me. “If the government turned round now and said, ‘We realise it has been happening in other areas of the NHS and we are prepared to accept it now’, that might be of some use to me. But he [Alan Johnson] is just trying to placate people and for those in my position it doesn’t help at all. “Some of these reviews go on for years. I will be dead by then.”
Another cancer patient, Jonathan Chapple, a retired company chairman from Kingston, southwest London, was asked by an NHS trust to pay £55,000 upfront for all of his cancer care when he asked to top up with the drugs that doctors said would give him the best chance. Like Matthews, Chapple, 69, was told by doctors that Avastin or Erbitux, which are not routinely funded by the NHS, were most likely to extend his life. His oncologist at the Royal Marsden told him that he could not continue to receive NHS care while paying for the drugs, however, and he was advised to transfer to the hospital’s private wing. Chapple said: “Having paid all my life for NHS services, to be put in this position feels immoral.” He is now travelling to a private clinic in Germany for treatment.
The Royal Marsden said: “In line with all private providers, we do ask for a deposit upfront and this is judged on the individual patient and their treatment pathway.”
Source
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
The correlation is undoubted but the reason why is the interesting part. That more intelligent people are far more likely to be exposed to the Leftist and anti-religious attitudes that prevail in the academy is certainly a large part of the explanation. But why is the academy Leftist? It was not always so. The great universities were mostly religious organizations originally. It is the influence of Leftism. From the French revolution on, Leftists have always resented any authority other than themselves
Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average. A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.
But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics. Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else. A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers. A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.
Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts. He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God." He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.
But Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors. "Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.
Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment".
Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions."
Source
Sunday, June 22, 2008
British Moths in peril from cold and wet weather
Hey! What happened to global warming? Warming's bad. Cooling's bad. Everything is bad to a Greenie
Last summer's rain and recent cold evenings may have worsened the plight of moths, which are in decline. Unseasonable weather this year could have further reduced the species, including the garden tiger moth, right, whose numbers declined by 89 per cent in 35 years to 2002. The decline could affect the survival of other wildlife, including birds, toads, bats and hedgehogs, which feed on moths or caterpillars. Butterfly Conservation, based at East Lulworth, Dorset, is asking the public nationally to join its Garden Moths Count from today to July 6.
Source
Selective schools condemn thousands to failure, says British school boss
The fact that their phasing out has coincided with fewer working class kids going to university must not be mentioned, of course. Grammar schools have long been Britain's best ladder out of poverty for bright pupils but the socialists hate them
Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary, launched his most brutal attack yet on grammar schools, accusing them of condemning thousands of pupils to educational failure. He said the existence of the 11-plus in some areas created a damaging two-tier system in which many children fell behind. In a speech to headteachers, Mr Balls insisted those who missed out on grammar school places were made to feel like they had "already failed" at the age of 11. The comments were made as he unveiled a multi-million pound package to improve standards at struggling secondary moderns - non-selective schools in grammar school areas
The National Grammar Schools Association accused Mr Balls of a "secret plan" to abolish grammars. It also came as Labour sought to reopen Conservatives splits over selective education. Michael Gove, the Tory shadow children's secretary, visited a grammar school in Trafford - a year after the party was engulfed in a damaging row over its decision not to open any more selective schools. Mr Gove insisted grammars should be "absolutely defended" where they already existed and that other secondaries could learn from top-performing academic schools. But he insisted it did not amount to a U-turn, accusing the Government of using education policy "not as a means of improving children's futures but scoring political points".
It marks the latest twist in a long-running row over the future of England's few remaining selective schools. Academic selection was abolished in the 1970s with the introduction of comprehensive education in most counties. But 170 secondary moderns and 164 grammars still exist in areas such as Kent, Lincolnshire, Birmingham and Buckinghamshire which retained the 11-plus.
Addressing a conference in Birmingham, Mr Balls said: "Let me make it clear that I don't like selection. I accept though that selection is a local decision for parents and local authorities. "But I do not accept that children in secondary moderns should be left to fall behind. Some secondary moderns are showing that it is possible to achieve really excellent results, but the fact is that selection does make it more difficult for these schools. "They still have a much more deprived intake than their neighbouring grammar schools - over six times more in fact. "And I've heard first-hand how some of the young people starting in these schools feel on day one that they have already failed."
Under a new "secondary modern strategy" being published next month, up to 1m pounds will go to the worst-performing schools over three years and new partnerships will be made with outstanding schools nearby. Mr Balls also hinted that headteachers could receive extra pay to work in secondary moderns.
Last year, the Conservatives faced a revolt by backbenchers after severing the party's long-standing ties with the 11-plus. Graham Brady, then shadow Europe minister, quit over the move. Mr Gove visited a series of comprehensives and grammars in Mr Brady's Altrincham and Sale West constituency. He said: "More broadly, the Conservative party has always said that where grammar schools exist and where they command the support of the local community, then they should be absolutely defended because we believe in not just excellence in education but also respecting local wishes. "Our policy has not changed. We are clear that there will be no return to the 11-plus nationally but we are also clear that, where good schools exist, it would be foolish not to learn from their success and see how we can apply those more widely across the state system."
Mr Brady said: "I think it ought to be possible to have elements of selection but that is a political discussion which can be had. "Michael's visit has very clearly demonstrated that there is no educational argument against selective areas and there is no social argument that we are achieving opportunities for all children in grammar schools and high schools."
But Jim Knight, the Government's schools minister, sought to exploit what he described as Tory splits over selective schools. Last year, Dominic Grieve, a Buckinghamshire MP and new shadow home secretary, said more grammars should be opened in the county if they were needed. "We do not know where David Cameron or Michael Gove really stand or what Conservative Party policy is today," said Mr Knight. "David Cameron has relied on shallow salesmanship to dodge the tough questions for over a year but it's now time for the Tories to come clean."
Source
Amazing: Britain to mandate annual "safety" inspections of all garden trees
At huge overall cost
Homeowners face having to pay a specialist to inspect their trees under a safety regime drawn up by one of Britain's most respected watchdogs. The British standard for tree safety inspection would require all trees to be checked by a "trained person" every three years, with a still more rigorous "expert inspection" by an arboriculturist every five years. Tree owners will also be obliged to conduct a "walk-by" inspection themselves once a year.
The drive to make all trees subject to inspection is being led not by the Health and Safety Executive - which opposes the move - but by the British Standards Institution (BSI). Highly respected in the building and engineering industries, it is better known for its views on the composition of cement than on the health of trees.
Its proposals come despite the low risk posed by trees to the public. On average six people a year are killed by falling trees, making the probability of a fatal accident less than one in two million. This compares with 647 deaths from tripping down stairs or steps.
Under the health and safety principles that have governed trees for 60 years, the risk they pose is "tolerable", and no inspection regime is necessary if the probability of death is less than one in one million each year. But the BSI was prompted to act after several legal cases appeared to challenge the existing regime. In 2006 Gary Poll, a motorcyclist, collided with a fallen branch on a road in Somerset and made a claim against the landowners. The judge ruled that if arboriculturists had been called in, the accident could have been averted.
But critics say that the BSI is overreacting and fear that a tree standard would spawn a new industry of tree inspection - a bonanza for arboriculturists but extra cost for homeowners, local authorities and landowners. Many tree surgeons do not currently charge to inspect garden trees because it normally leads to work. Tree Care, a company in West London, is typical. It does not charge for inspections and quotes but the charge for the most basic work is 160 pounds. However, some companies who work for large landowners do offer an inspection service. Prices start at 300. However, those consulted by The Times yesterday said that if they were being called out for numerous routine inspection visits they would have to charge about 70 pounds a time, or more if they had to climb the tree.
The tree standard is currently a draft, subject to public consultation, but many tree owners are not sure how to make their views known. The new British Standard would cover trees growing anywhere near where the public had access, or within falling distance of man-made structures such as other properties. It also covers areas where "branch shedding or whole tree failure could potentially cause severe harm or loss of life".
A recently established risk watchdog, charged with halting the march of the "nanny state", has intervened to try to get the BSI to think again. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council said that the level of risk posed by trees did not warrant a national inspection regime. "The risk from trees has not increased. We believe the existing legal principle effective for the last 60 years is sufficient," Rick Haythornthwaite, the council's chairman, said. "This is a perfect example of how the pressure to regulate to minimise public risk can lead to wholly undesirable outcomes if left unchallenged."
He also accuses "risk entrepreneurs" in the tree industry for seeking regulation to maximise the perception of risk. "The result is a set of standards for which they are perfectly placed to provide profitable solutions," he said.
A spokeswoman for the BSI defended its decision to set standards for trees. "We issue standards in all sorts of areas, including businesses such as estate agents," she said. "We hope to issue the standard early next year and everyone is able to comment on the draft up until July 31."
Source
Not too bright British bureaucracy
Martha Stewart refused entry to the UK
Martha Stewart has been refused a visa to Britain because of her criminal convictions for obstructing justice. The lifestyle guru, convicted four years ago in the US for obstructing justice, was planning to speak at the Royal Academy and to hold meetings with several figures in the fashion and leisure industry, including Jasper Conran, and was due to travel within the next few days.
The refusal by the UK Border Agency was sent to Ms Stewart, aged 66. A spokesperson for the business magnate said: "Martha loves England and hopes this can be resolved and that she will be able to visit soon." She added that Ms Stewart has many friends in Britain, which she has visited numerous times. A cook, designer and publisher, Ms Stewart was once called "the definitive American woman of our time" and once collaborated with Wedgwood on a range of crockery.
A British government official called the decision "an own goal" given the transatlantic business and goodwill her visit could generate. "It is a bit silly given some of the other people allowed into the country," the official added.
It was not clear if Ms Stewart had been singled out or was a victim of a blanket rule imposed by the new agency. In 2004 she served five months in prison for lying to federal agents investigating the sale of shares shortly before they fell sharply in value.
The UK Border Agency said it would not comment on individual cases. A spokesman added: "We continue to oppose the entry to the UK of individuals where we believe their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good or where they have been found guilty of serious criminal offences abroad."
Source
Why can't Britain equip its soldiers properly?: "The Ministry of Defence must remove Snatch Land Rovers from operations following the deaths of four soldiers in Afghanistan this week, military experts have said. The poorly-protected vehicles, which are due to be phased out entirely later this year, have been withdrawn from use in Iraq but are still being used in Afghanistan, where it was thought that the bomb threat was less sophisticated. Three Special Forces soldiers and Corporal Sarah Bryant, the female Intelligence Corps soldier, were killed when their Land Rover was hit by a roadside explosion on Tuesday. Charles Heyman, a defence analyst and former Army major, said that the roads in Afghanistan were "too dangerous for normal troop movement." [But Britain has no shortage of money to pay clerks and "administrators", of course]
Hey! What happened to global warming? Warming's bad. Cooling's bad. Everything is bad to a Greenie
Last summer's rain and recent cold evenings may have worsened the plight of moths, which are in decline. Unseasonable weather this year could have further reduced the species, including the garden tiger moth, right, whose numbers declined by 89 per cent in 35 years to 2002. The decline could affect the survival of other wildlife, including birds, toads, bats and hedgehogs, which feed on moths or caterpillars. Butterfly Conservation, based at East Lulworth, Dorset, is asking the public nationally to join its Garden Moths Count from today to July 6.
Source
Selective schools condemn thousands to failure, says British school boss
The fact that their phasing out has coincided with fewer working class kids going to university must not be mentioned, of course. Grammar schools have long been Britain's best ladder out of poverty for bright pupils but the socialists hate them
Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary, launched his most brutal attack yet on grammar schools, accusing them of condemning thousands of pupils to educational failure. He said the existence of the 11-plus in some areas created a damaging two-tier system in which many children fell behind. In a speech to headteachers, Mr Balls insisted those who missed out on grammar school places were made to feel like they had "already failed" at the age of 11. The comments were made as he unveiled a multi-million pound package to improve standards at struggling secondary moderns - non-selective schools in grammar school areas
The National Grammar Schools Association accused Mr Balls of a "secret plan" to abolish grammars. It also came as Labour sought to reopen Conservatives splits over selective education. Michael Gove, the Tory shadow children's secretary, visited a grammar school in Trafford - a year after the party was engulfed in a damaging row over its decision not to open any more selective schools. Mr Gove insisted grammars should be "absolutely defended" where they already existed and that other secondaries could learn from top-performing academic schools. But he insisted it did not amount to a U-turn, accusing the Government of using education policy "not as a means of improving children's futures but scoring political points".
It marks the latest twist in a long-running row over the future of England's few remaining selective schools. Academic selection was abolished in the 1970s with the introduction of comprehensive education in most counties. But 170 secondary moderns and 164 grammars still exist in areas such as Kent, Lincolnshire, Birmingham and Buckinghamshire which retained the 11-plus.
Addressing a conference in Birmingham, Mr Balls said: "Let me make it clear that I don't like selection. I accept though that selection is a local decision for parents and local authorities. "But I do not accept that children in secondary moderns should be left to fall behind. Some secondary moderns are showing that it is possible to achieve really excellent results, but the fact is that selection does make it more difficult for these schools. "They still have a much more deprived intake than their neighbouring grammar schools - over six times more in fact. "And I've heard first-hand how some of the young people starting in these schools feel on day one that they have already failed."
Under a new "secondary modern strategy" being published next month, up to 1m pounds will go to the worst-performing schools over three years and new partnerships will be made with outstanding schools nearby. Mr Balls also hinted that headteachers could receive extra pay to work in secondary moderns.
Last year, the Conservatives faced a revolt by backbenchers after severing the party's long-standing ties with the 11-plus. Graham Brady, then shadow Europe minister, quit over the move. Mr Gove visited a series of comprehensives and grammars in Mr Brady's Altrincham and Sale West constituency. He said: "More broadly, the Conservative party has always said that where grammar schools exist and where they command the support of the local community, then they should be absolutely defended because we believe in not just excellence in education but also respecting local wishes. "Our policy has not changed. We are clear that there will be no return to the 11-plus nationally but we are also clear that, where good schools exist, it would be foolish not to learn from their success and see how we can apply those more widely across the state system."
Mr Brady said: "I think it ought to be possible to have elements of selection but that is a political discussion which can be had. "Michael's visit has very clearly demonstrated that there is no educational argument against selective areas and there is no social argument that we are achieving opportunities for all children in grammar schools and high schools."
But Jim Knight, the Government's schools minister, sought to exploit what he described as Tory splits over selective schools. Last year, Dominic Grieve, a Buckinghamshire MP and new shadow home secretary, said more grammars should be opened in the county if they were needed. "We do not know where David Cameron or Michael Gove really stand or what Conservative Party policy is today," said Mr Knight. "David Cameron has relied on shallow salesmanship to dodge the tough questions for over a year but it's now time for the Tories to come clean."
Source
Amazing: Britain to mandate annual "safety" inspections of all garden trees
At huge overall cost
Homeowners face having to pay a specialist to inspect their trees under a safety regime drawn up by one of Britain's most respected watchdogs. The British standard for tree safety inspection would require all trees to be checked by a "trained person" every three years, with a still more rigorous "expert inspection" by an arboriculturist every five years. Tree owners will also be obliged to conduct a "walk-by" inspection themselves once a year.
The drive to make all trees subject to inspection is being led not by the Health and Safety Executive - which opposes the move - but by the British Standards Institution (BSI). Highly respected in the building and engineering industries, it is better known for its views on the composition of cement than on the health of trees.
Its proposals come despite the low risk posed by trees to the public. On average six people a year are killed by falling trees, making the probability of a fatal accident less than one in two million. This compares with 647 deaths from tripping down stairs or steps.
Under the health and safety principles that have governed trees for 60 years, the risk they pose is "tolerable", and no inspection regime is necessary if the probability of death is less than one in one million each year. But the BSI was prompted to act after several legal cases appeared to challenge the existing regime. In 2006 Gary Poll, a motorcyclist, collided with a fallen branch on a road in Somerset and made a claim against the landowners. The judge ruled that if arboriculturists had been called in, the accident could have been averted.
But critics say that the BSI is overreacting and fear that a tree standard would spawn a new industry of tree inspection - a bonanza for arboriculturists but extra cost for homeowners, local authorities and landowners. Many tree surgeons do not currently charge to inspect garden trees because it normally leads to work. Tree Care, a company in West London, is typical. It does not charge for inspections and quotes but the charge for the most basic work is 160 pounds. However, some companies who work for large landowners do offer an inspection service. Prices start at 300. However, those consulted by The Times yesterday said that if they were being called out for numerous routine inspection visits they would have to charge about 70 pounds a time, or more if they had to climb the tree.
The tree standard is currently a draft, subject to public consultation, but many tree owners are not sure how to make their views known. The new British Standard would cover trees growing anywhere near where the public had access, or within falling distance of man-made structures such as other properties. It also covers areas where "branch shedding or whole tree failure could potentially cause severe harm or loss of life".
A recently established risk watchdog, charged with halting the march of the "nanny state", has intervened to try to get the BSI to think again. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council said that the level of risk posed by trees did not warrant a national inspection regime. "The risk from trees has not increased. We believe the existing legal principle effective for the last 60 years is sufficient," Rick Haythornthwaite, the council's chairman, said. "This is a perfect example of how the pressure to regulate to minimise public risk can lead to wholly undesirable outcomes if left unchallenged."
He also accuses "risk entrepreneurs" in the tree industry for seeking regulation to maximise the perception of risk. "The result is a set of standards for which they are perfectly placed to provide profitable solutions," he said.
A spokeswoman for the BSI defended its decision to set standards for trees. "We issue standards in all sorts of areas, including businesses such as estate agents," she said. "We hope to issue the standard early next year and everyone is able to comment on the draft up until July 31."
Source
Not too bright British bureaucracy
Martha Stewart refused entry to the UK
Martha Stewart has been refused a visa to Britain because of her criminal convictions for obstructing justice. The lifestyle guru, convicted four years ago in the US for obstructing justice, was planning to speak at the Royal Academy and to hold meetings with several figures in the fashion and leisure industry, including Jasper Conran, and was due to travel within the next few days.
The refusal by the UK Border Agency was sent to Ms Stewart, aged 66. A spokesperson for the business magnate said: "Martha loves England and hopes this can be resolved and that she will be able to visit soon." She added that Ms Stewart has many friends in Britain, which she has visited numerous times. A cook, designer and publisher, Ms Stewart was once called "the definitive American woman of our time" and once collaborated with Wedgwood on a range of crockery.
A British government official called the decision "an own goal" given the transatlantic business and goodwill her visit could generate. "It is a bit silly given some of the other people allowed into the country," the official added.
It was not clear if Ms Stewart had been singled out or was a victim of a blanket rule imposed by the new agency. In 2004 she served five months in prison for lying to federal agents investigating the sale of shares shortly before they fell sharply in value.
The UK Border Agency said it would not comment on individual cases. A spokesman added: "We continue to oppose the entry to the UK of individuals where we believe their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good or where they have been found guilty of serious criminal offences abroad."
Source
Why can't Britain equip its soldiers properly?: "The Ministry of Defence must remove Snatch Land Rovers from operations following the deaths of four soldiers in Afghanistan this week, military experts have said. The poorly-protected vehicles, which are due to be phased out entirely later this year, have been withdrawn from use in Iraq but are still being used in Afghanistan, where it was thought that the bomb threat was less sophisticated. Three Special Forces soldiers and Corporal Sarah Bryant, the female Intelligence Corps soldier, were killed when their Land Rover was hit by a roadside explosion on Tuesday. Charles Heyman, a defence analyst and former Army major, said that the roads in Afghanistan were "too dangerous for normal troop movement." [But Britain has no shortage of money to pay clerks and "administrators", of course]
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Rebellion against empty-headed British "science" curriculum
A leading grammar school has become the first state school to drop GCSEs in favour of a tougher exam based on the old O-level. Pupils at Bexley Grammar School in south-east London are to start studying for the International GCSE in science from this September.
More than 250 independent schools have already started teaching the new qualification because they believe it is more challenging. But state schools had previously held off, fearing the move would lose them funding because the International GCSE is not recognised by the Government's exam authority.
Bexley Grammar, where every pupil got at least five A* to C passes at GCSE level last year, says it will not lose money because its pupils will still be studying normal GCSEs in other subjects and schools are funded per child not per exam. It is dropping science GCSE following changes to the curriculum which mean pupils debate the ethics of science at the expense of traditional experiments. The International GCSE is seen as more rigorous as it relies less on coursework and retains more difficult material.
Rod Mackinnon, the school's headteacher, said: "We have concerns about the challenge of the new curriculum. "It would be the same with the top sets in comprehensive schools; we do not think it stretches our pupils enough. "We were clear it just wasn't going to stimulate our pupils enough." The change will affect Bexley Grammar's standing in league tables, as a new measure is to be introduced next year which will show how many pupils in each school get top marks at science GCSE.
But Mr Mackinnon said he was not worried if the school slipped in league tables if it meant his pupils were learning more about science. He said: "We will register a big fat zero there. However, I am happy to argue why we've done it. It is in the pupils' interests."
The Department of Children, Schools and Families has confirmed that Bexley Grammar will not lose any funding for ditching science GCSE. However it is believed other state schools may be put off from following its lead because of the effect on their standing in league tables. It comes just days after the think tank Civitas warned that pupils who do not attend independent schools will be "left behind" as they have less opportunity to study the tougher International GCSE.
Source
Evil British police again
A one-legged Royal Navy veteran was arrested after he rescued his neighbour from being harassed by two men. Stephen Beerling, 52, dialled 999 and raced to help the women and her baby after hearing screams during the night. But he was arrested when officers spotted a retractable truncheon he had picked up in case he had to protect himself.
Mr Beerling, a Liberal Democrat councillor, was arrested, locked up for 12 hours and charged with possessing an offensive weapon. He told of his ordeal yesterday after learning the Crown Prosecution Service had decided to drop the charge against him. Mr Beerling, of Maidstone, Kent, said: ' I am relieved, but very disappointed it even came to this. I don't blame the police but maybe they should have used their noggin. Perhaps they were a little inexperienced. The blame lies with the CPS - I just cannot understand why they wanted to press charges.'
Mr Beerling said the drama began at 2.30am on March 19 when he was woken by screams from his next door neighbour and her baby, and the sound of men shouting. He called police and strapped on the false leg he has worn since his leg was amputated in March 2004 while he was still serving with the Royal Navy. Aware he was probably outnumbered, he picked up the telescopic truncheon and put it in his back pocket. Mr Beerling then hurried downstairs and went outside where he said his neighbour was being harassed by two men.
He tried to calm the men down while he waited for police. Officers later arrested both suspects and charged them with affray. But then they also arrested him when they saw the truncheon. Mr Beerling was taken to Maidstone police station, kept in a cell overnight and charged. His case was due at crown court this week but on Wednesday the CPS decided to drop the charge.
The former sailor said: 'When they tried to open the truncheon, it was all rusted up. I've had it for years and it's just been in a drawer. 'It could be classed as an offensive weapon if it was taken out in public and used with intent. I hadn't even taken it out of my pocket. 'But I wouldn't think twice about stepping in to help people again. I could not have stood by and let it go. 'The most important thing for right-thinking people is to stand up to criminals who blight our society.'
Kent Police and Senior Crown Prosecutor Janet Garnon-Williams said in a statement: 'A decision has been taken jointly to discontinue the case as there is not a realistic prospect of conviction.' A police spokesman said the two men arrested with Mr Beerling were charged with affray, but the cases were later dropped. One was charged with possession of cannabis and fined 100 pounds by Maidstone magistrates.
Source
More British "safety" idiocy
Sports day cancelled because uneven playing field is a health and safety risk. But it's much better for kids to learn not to trip over things when they are young. It's part of growing up
A school sports day has been cancelled over health and safety fears, because teaching staff are worried that the children could trip up on the uneven playing field. The head teacher of Holmbush First School in Shoreham, West Sussex, has written to parents to tell them that the annual event has been called off to avoid accidents. Rebecca Jackson told them that the surface of the school's playing field could be "too dangerous" for the traditional sack, egg-and-spoon, wheelbarrow and three-legged races. She said there were concerns that cracks and holes in the surface could cause the young pupils to "trip or fall".
But parents have said the decision to ban sports day, which was scheduled for July 14, is "ludicrous". Louise Powell, 32, a physiotherapist, was unimpressed when her daughter Maisie, five, came home from school with the letter. She said: "The school produces a newsletter every month. The latest issue said they've cancelled sports day for health and safety issues because the ground is uneven. "I'm absolutely furious because we were so looking forward to it. We were excited because it would have been Maisie's first sports day, it's really upset me. It's ludicrous. "I did sports day on ground that was uneven. Our playing field was on a slope and I know my husband did his on ground that was probably uneven. "When we were kids, you just got on with it." She added other parents and children were equally disappointed.
Another mum, who didn't want to be named, said: "Part of the fun of school sports days is running about and falling over all over the place - especially the three-legged race. "You are expected to fall over when you take part in a three-legged race, that's almost the point of it."
However, Mrs Jackson has defended the decision. She said the field, which has recently been acquired by the school, was used as farmland and is not yet ready for use by the 267 pupils. She said: "The school has not had a sports day before and we were hoping to organise one this year because we have had some playing field access. "But we have inspected the field and it's not yet ready to be used for sports day because of cracks and holes in the surface, which could be dangerous and cause children to trip or fall."
Source
The poor are born less healthy
And the British government has failed to shift that, funnily enough
Sixty years in hot pursuit of equity have left Britain a country as divided as ever between healthy haves and unhealthy have-nots. Endless intellectual effort has been put into devising a formula that will allocate NHS resources in such a way as to eliminate such differences. They have failed. Since 1997, inequalities of health have in some respects widened. Targets have been missed.
Alan Johnson's response is to throw another 34million pounds at the problem, and shift the deadline from 2008 to 2010. Ministers' latest wheeze is to inject more money to provide extra GP surgeries in areas that have fewer doctors. Let us pass over the fact that these areas are already well-funded under the allocation formula, so should not need any more. Of course it is right that everybody should have equal access to a GP, so far as human ingenuity can provide it, but by the time most patients reach the GP's surgery the damage is done.
Health inequalities begin in the womb, are nurtured by poor diet and bad parenting, and multiplied by habits such as smoking. Once, high cancer rates in the North would have been explained by occupational exposure in the workplace but that is no longer plausible. Smoking, and increasingly obesity, are the greatest risk factors. There is a near-doubling of lung cancer incidence in men between Surrey, West Sussex and Hampshire (the lowest) and Merseyside and Cheshire (the highest). In women the gap between highest and lowest is wider still.
Breast cancer is much more egalitarian, with only small variations. There are bigger variations in prostate cancer incidence, but this largely reflects local enthusiasm for screening: the differences in death rates are smaller. The literature of health inequalities generally concludes that they follow disparities of wealth: the wider the wealth gap, the wider the health gap. If this is so, then Labour has been caught in a trap of its own making. Gordon Brown was happy to "eliminate poverty" with handouts, but not by squeezing the rich until the pips squeaked, as Denis Healey once promised. And American evidence suggests that there is no threshold above which the wealth-health link diminishes in force. In a world of haves, have-nots, and have-yachts, it is the yacht-owners who do best of all.
So you can have a go-getting economy where entrepreneurs flourish and hedge-fund billionaires proliferate, or you can have Scandinavian-style levelling down and more equal health outcomes. What nobody has yet devised is a way of combining the two.
Source
Escape blunder in Britain as minister launches immigration crackdown
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, faced embarrassment today after seven illegal immigrants broke out of a detention centre on the day she unveiled a new crackdown on immigration. Miss Smith revealed a "tough" strategy for tackling offenders and launched it by meeting with police officers carrying out dawn raids on alleged bent solicitors and bogus colleges.
But within hours, news had emerged of a security breach at the Campsfield detention centre in Oxfordshire. Three men who were facing deportation are on the run tonight. Opposition leaders hit out at repeated, "unacceptable" blunders at Campsfield and said the timing of the incident, coinciding with the new policy launch, was "sadly appropriate".
In a raft of new measures, Miss Smith announced that the UK Border Agency would "name and shame" employers who hire illegal immigrants, that those who were convicted and sentenced to a year or more faced "automatic deportation", and launched a crackdown on illegal immigrants obtaining British driving licences.
In the London raids, police arrested at least eight men and women linked with companies they believe helped illegal immigrants to settle in the UK. Officials believe the firm of solicitors at the centre of the inquiry was issuing false education certificates to them, which they would then use to "enrol" at one of four bogus colleges across London and fraudulently apply for student visas.
Only later did the break-out emerge. Four of the escapees were recaptured by police shortly after the alarm was raised at 4 am, including one, a Libyan with a criminal record, who was found eating tomatoes at the Botanical Gardens in Oxford. The other three remain on the run, Thames Valley Police said. The break-out happened just five days after a fire at the 215-man Campsfield detention centre, during which around 20 detainees staged a rooftop protest. There was a riot at the centre last December and 26 detainees escaped from the centre in a mass break-out months before.
Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary, said: "It is sadly appropriate that a serious and dangerous incident at an immigration detention centre should coincide with the Government's latest attempt at talking tough on immigration. "Announcing yet another reorganisation of the UK Borders Agency and putting names on a website is no substitute for real action. Naming and shaming is no substitute for catching and convicting. "All of this shows why we need an integrated Border Police Force bringing together the police with immigration and customs, to make our borders safer and the immigration system less chaotic."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "This is the fifth major disturbance at Campsfield in little over a year and the second in a week. It raises serious questions about the wisdom of mixing foreign national ex-prisoners with immigration detainees. "The frequency of fires and escapes suggests there are significant problems with either the Home Office system or the management of Campsfield itself."
Source
EU treaty: Leaders praise Gordon Brown's courage: "European Union leaders have heaped praise on Gordon Brown's "courage" in keeping the Lisbon Treaty alive by ignoring Ireland's No vote and UK public opinion to complete Britain's ratification. The Prime Minister found himself in the uncomfortable position of being lauded for defying British opinion as EU leaders met to discuss ways to push ahead with the Lisbon treaty despite the Irish rejection. Over dinner in Brussels, EU leaders set an October deadline for the Irish government to come up with a way to ratify the treaty, which requires the approval of all 27 member-states to take effect. Despite publicly promising to respect the Irish vote, EU states led by France are leading a campaign to pressurize Ireland into agreeing a second referendum." [Ireland should threaten to join NAFTA instead. Their welcome to an economic union with the USA and Canada would be enormous]
A leading grammar school has become the first state school to drop GCSEs in favour of a tougher exam based on the old O-level. Pupils at Bexley Grammar School in south-east London are to start studying for the International GCSE in science from this September.
More than 250 independent schools have already started teaching the new qualification because they believe it is more challenging. But state schools had previously held off, fearing the move would lose them funding because the International GCSE is not recognised by the Government's exam authority.
Bexley Grammar, where every pupil got at least five A* to C passes at GCSE level last year, says it will not lose money because its pupils will still be studying normal GCSEs in other subjects and schools are funded per child not per exam. It is dropping science GCSE following changes to the curriculum which mean pupils debate the ethics of science at the expense of traditional experiments. The International GCSE is seen as more rigorous as it relies less on coursework and retains more difficult material.
Rod Mackinnon, the school's headteacher, said: "We have concerns about the challenge of the new curriculum. "It would be the same with the top sets in comprehensive schools; we do not think it stretches our pupils enough. "We were clear it just wasn't going to stimulate our pupils enough." The change will affect Bexley Grammar's standing in league tables, as a new measure is to be introduced next year which will show how many pupils in each school get top marks at science GCSE.
But Mr Mackinnon said he was not worried if the school slipped in league tables if it meant his pupils were learning more about science. He said: "We will register a big fat zero there. However, I am happy to argue why we've done it. It is in the pupils' interests."
The Department of Children, Schools and Families has confirmed that Bexley Grammar will not lose any funding for ditching science GCSE. However it is believed other state schools may be put off from following its lead because of the effect on their standing in league tables. It comes just days after the think tank Civitas warned that pupils who do not attend independent schools will be "left behind" as they have less opportunity to study the tougher International GCSE.
Source
Evil British police again
A one-legged Royal Navy veteran was arrested after he rescued his neighbour from being harassed by two men. Stephen Beerling, 52, dialled 999 and raced to help the women and her baby after hearing screams during the night. But he was arrested when officers spotted a retractable truncheon he had picked up in case he had to protect himself.
Mr Beerling, a Liberal Democrat councillor, was arrested, locked up for 12 hours and charged with possessing an offensive weapon. He told of his ordeal yesterday after learning the Crown Prosecution Service had decided to drop the charge against him. Mr Beerling, of Maidstone, Kent, said: ' I am relieved, but very disappointed it even came to this. I don't blame the police but maybe they should have used their noggin. Perhaps they were a little inexperienced. The blame lies with the CPS - I just cannot understand why they wanted to press charges.'
Mr Beerling said the drama began at 2.30am on March 19 when he was woken by screams from his next door neighbour and her baby, and the sound of men shouting. He called police and strapped on the false leg he has worn since his leg was amputated in March 2004 while he was still serving with the Royal Navy. Aware he was probably outnumbered, he picked up the telescopic truncheon and put it in his back pocket. Mr Beerling then hurried downstairs and went outside where he said his neighbour was being harassed by two men.
He tried to calm the men down while he waited for police. Officers later arrested both suspects and charged them with affray. But then they also arrested him when they saw the truncheon. Mr Beerling was taken to Maidstone police station, kept in a cell overnight and charged. His case was due at crown court this week but on Wednesday the CPS decided to drop the charge.
The former sailor said: 'When they tried to open the truncheon, it was all rusted up. I've had it for years and it's just been in a drawer. 'It could be classed as an offensive weapon if it was taken out in public and used with intent. I hadn't even taken it out of my pocket. 'But I wouldn't think twice about stepping in to help people again. I could not have stood by and let it go. 'The most important thing for right-thinking people is to stand up to criminals who blight our society.'
Kent Police and Senior Crown Prosecutor Janet Garnon-Williams said in a statement: 'A decision has been taken jointly to discontinue the case as there is not a realistic prospect of conviction.' A police spokesman said the two men arrested with Mr Beerling were charged with affray, but the cases were later dropped. One was charged with possession of cannabis and fined 100 pounds by Maidstone magistrates.
Source
More British "safety" idiocy
Sports day cancelled because uneven playing field is a health and safety risk. But it's much better for kids to learn not to trip over things when they are young. It's part of growing up
A school sports day has been cancelled over health and safety fears, because teaching staff are worried that the children could trip up on the uneven playing field. The head teacher of Holmbush First School in Shoreham, West Sussex, has written to parents to tell them that the annual event has been called off to avoid accidents. Rebecca Jackson told them that the surface of the school's playing field could be "too dangerous" for the traditional sack, egg-and-spoon, wheelbarrow and three-legged races. She said there were concerns that cracks and holes in the surface could cause the young pupils to "trip or fall".
But parents have said the decision to ban sports day, which was scheduled for July 14, is "ludicrous". Louise Powell, 32, a physiotherapist, was unimpressed when her daughter Maisie, five, came home from school with the letter. She said: "The school produces a newsletter every month. The latest issue said they've cancelled sports day for health and safety issues because the ground is uneven. "I'm absolutely furious because we were so looking forward to it. We were excited because it would have been Maisie's first sports day, it's really upset me. It's ludicrous. "I did sports day on ground that was uneven. Our playing field was on a slope and I know my husband did his on ground that was probably uneven. "When we were kids, you just got on with it." She added other parents and children were equally disappointed.
Another mum, who didn't want to be named, said: "Part of the fun of school sports days is running about and falling over all over the place - especially the three-legged race. "You are expected to fall over when you take part in a three-legged race, that's almost the point of it."
However, Mrs Jackson has defended the decision. She said the field, which has recently been acquired by the school, was used as farmland and is not yet ready for use by the 267 pupils. She said: "The school has not had a sports day before and we were hoping to organise one this year because we have had some playing field access. "But we have inspected the field and it's not yet ready to be used for sports day because of cracks and holes in the surface, which could be dangerous and cause children to trip or fall."
Source
The poor are born less healthy
And the British government has failed to shift that, funnily enough
Sixty years in hot pursuit of equity have left Britain a country as divided as ever between healthy haves and unhealthy have-nots. Endless intellectual effort has been put into devising a formula that will allocate NHS resources in such a way as to eliminate such differences. They have failed. Since 1997, inequalities of health have in some respects widened. Targets have been missed.
Alan Johnson's response is to throw another 34million pounds at the problem, and shift the deadline from 2008 to 2010. Ministers' latest wheeze is to inject more money to provide extra GP surgeries in areas that have fewer doctors. Let us pass over the fact that these areas are already well-funded under the allocation formula, so should not need any more. Of course it is right that everybody should have equal access to a GP, so far as human ingenuity can provide it, but by the time most patients reach the GP's surgery the damage is done.
Health inequalities begin in the womb, are nurtured by poor diet and bad parenting, and multiplied by habits such as smoking. Once, high cancer rates in the North would have been explained by occupational exposure in the workplace but that is no longer plausible. Smoking, and increasingly obesity, are the greatest risk factors. There is a near-doubling of lung cancer incidence in men between Surrey, West Sussex and Hampshire (the lowest) and Merseyside and Cheshire (the highest). In women the gap between highest and lowest is wider still.
Breast cancer is much more egalitarian, with only small variations. There are bigger variations in prostate cancer incidence, but this largely reflects local enthusiasm for screening: the differences in death rates are smaller. The literature of health inequalities generally concludes that they follow disparities of wealth: the wider the wealth gap, the wider the health gap. If this is so, then Labour has been caught in a trap of its own making. Gordon Brown was happy to "eliminate poverty" with handouts, but not by squeezing the rich until the pips squeaked, as Denis Healey once promised. And American evidence suggests that there is no threshold above which the wealth-health link diminishes in force. In a world of haves, have-nots, and have-yachts, it is the yacht-owners who do best of all.
So you can have a go-getting economy where entrepreneurs flourish and hedge-fund billionaires proliferate, or you can have Scandinavian-style levelling down and more equal health outcomes. What nobody has yet devised is a way of combining the two.
Source
Escape blunder in Britain as minister launches immigration crackdown
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, faced embarrassment today after seven illegal immigrants broke out of a detention centre on the day she unveiled a new crackdown on immigration. Miss Smith revealed a "tough" strategy for tackling offenders and launched it by meeting with police officers carrying out dawn raids on alleged bent solicitors and bogus colleges.
But within hours, news had emerged of a security breach at the Campsfield detention centre in Oxfordshire. Three men who were facing deportation are on the run tonight. Opposition leaders hit out at repeated, "unacceptable" blunders at Campsfield and said the timing of the incident, coinciding with the new policy launch, was "sadly appropriate".
In a raft of new measures, Miss Smith announced that the UK Border Agency would "name and shame" employers who hire illegal immigrants, that those who were convicted and sentenced to a year or more faced "automatic deportation", and launched a crackdown on illegal immigrants obtaining British driving licences.
In the London raids, police arrested at least eight men and women linked with companies they believe helped illegal immigrants to settle in the UK. Officials believe the firm of solicitors at the centre of the inquiry was issuing false education certificates to them, which they would then use to "enrol" at one of four bogus colleges across London and fraudulently apply for student visas.
Only later did the break-out emerge. Four of the escapees were recaptured by police shortly after the alarm was raised at 4 am, including one, a Libyan with a criminal record, who was found eating tomatoes at the Botanical Gardens in Oxford. The other three remain on the run, Thames Valley Police said. The break-out happened just five days after a fire at the 215-man Campsfield detention centre, during which around 20 detainees staged a rooftop protest. There was a riot at the centre last December and 26 detainees escaped from the centre in a mass break-out months before.
Dominic Grieve, Shadow Home Secretary, said: "It is sadly appropriate that a serious and dangerous incident at an immigration detention centre should coincide with the Government's latest attempt at talking tough on immigration. "Announcing yet another reorganisation of the UK Borders Agency and putting names on a website is no substitute for real action. Naming and shaming is no substitute for catching and convicting. "All of this shows why we need an integrated Border Police Force bringing together the police with immigration and customs, to make our borders safer and the immigration system less chaotic."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "This is the fifth major disturbance at Campsfield in little over a year and the second in a week. It raises serious questions about the wisdom of mixing foreign national ex-prisoners with immigration detainees. "The frequency of fires and escapes suggests there are significant problems with either the Home Office system or the management of Campsfield itself."
Source
EU treaty: Leaders praise Gordon Brown's courage: "European Union leaders have heaped praise on Gordon Brown's "courage" in keeping the Lisbon Treaty alive by ignoring Ireland's No vote and UK public opinion to complete Britain's ratification. The Prime Minister found himself in the uncomfortable position of being lauded for defying British opinion as EU leaders met to discuss ways to push ahead with the Lisbon treaty despite the Irish rejection. Over dinner in Brussels, EU leaders set an October deadline for the Irish government to come up with a way to ratify the treaty, which requires the approval of all 27 member-states to take effect. Despite publicly promising to respect the Irish vote, EU states led by France are leading a campaign to pressurize Ireland into agreeing a second referendum." [Ireland should threaten to join NAFTA instead. Their welcome to an economic union with the USA and Canada would be enormous]
Friday, June 20, 2008
ECONOMICS, POLITICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE: ARE THE SCEPTICS RIGHT?
The Julian Hodge Bank lecture given at Cardiff, April 2008 by Colin Robinson, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Surrey:
Many people in this audience will believe that significant changes in the world`s climate are already under way and that, in the medium to long term future, there will be further changes that will have catastrophic economic and social consequences if action is not taken in the near future to avert them. Virtually all the world`s opinion leaders subscribe to that view. As one example of this `doomsday view', take the comments of the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon who said of the scenarios in a report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[2] in November 2007, `These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie. But they are even more terrifying, because they are real'[3]. Ban Ki-moon is talking about views of the future which cannot in any accepted sense be `real': his comment shows that the inevitability of severe climate change is now so taken for granted that the future has become merged with the present.
The hypothesis and some broad issues
Put simply, the usual hypothesis about climate change is that emissions of carbon dioxide and other `greenhouse gases', from the use of energy and from other human activities, will lead to a future trend towards warming of the earth and consequential damage to economic and social life.
There is general (though not universal) agreement that there has been some warming of the earth in the last hundred years or so, but it is relatively modest[4]. The IPCC puts the increase in global annual mean temperature at around 0.75 degrees centigrade over that period[5]. Future warming has become the main focus of concern: there is a wide range of estimates, varying from about 1 to over 6 degrees C[6], comparing the end of the twentieth century with the end of the twentyfirst century. Obviously, I cannot provide a critique of the hypothesis from a climate science viewpoint[7] but economists are in a position to comment on some of the underlying methodological issues, on the economic and social consequences of climate change and on possible policy responses and their effects. I begin by outlining the links in the chain that lead to the view that climate change will be damaging and make some initial comments on them.
1.1 A climate change trend?
Since the climate is always changing, the damaging change hypothesis is difficult to pin down, but I was careful to specify it as implying a trend towards global warming. I take it that those who support the hypothesis must think there is a such a trend. If we were merely in the upward phase of a cycle, caused by natural forces, presumably there would be much less cause for concern because, by definition, the direction of the cycle would reverse and global warming would be replaced by global cooling. Determining whether warming is a trend or just part of a cycle is extremely difficult, given the apparent very long time scale of climatic change, yet, from a policy point of view, the distinction between trend and cycle is clearly vital: if warming is to be replaced by cooling in the relatively near future, as part of the same natural cycle, action now to curb warming might well have perverse effects. The amplitude and length of any cycle are also critical issues.
1.2 The link with greenhouse gases
There is scientific evidence that, other things equal, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will bring rising world temperatures. However, in the absence of complete scientific knowledge, the list of the `other things' and their effects is long but incomplete. There is considerable controversy over the significance of man-made emissions, compared with all the other effects on temperature. Most climate scientists would, like most economists, readily admit that their models are gross simplifications and that large areas of ignorance remain. Working out what happens when other things are constant is therefore not easy and it seems that experience in the twentieth century must lead to some doubts about the exact causal link between emissions and warming: despite continuously rising emissions during the century, the warming occurred in two periods (1920-1940 and 1975-1998), with slight cooling in between the two periods and no clear trend in the last ten years or so.
Economic and social consequences
Even if it could be established that there is a clear warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions, there are still important questions to be answered about the extent to which natural adaptation will deal with any economic and social consequences or whether, if action to combat the trend should be taken, what form it might take and what the costs might be compared with the benefits. Some economists, such as Sir Nicholas (now Lord) Stern, have attempted to answer these questions and to say what actions are required[8]. But, in the process, they have used some of the most heroic assumptions I have ever seen and tried to peer into the far distant future.
Bearing in mind these broad issues, in the rest of the lecture I will try to deal with a number of matters which seem important in deciding whether scepticism is justified about claims that damaging man-made climate change is in prospect. My purpose is not to say that there is no such prospect, but to argue that the sceptics should be taken seriously and that we should be careful not to plunge into large-scale, expensive, centrally run programmes to combat prospective climate change based on the assumption that we know more about the future than is possible. After making some rather critical comments about climate alarmism in the first part of the lecture, at the end I will accentuate the positive and suggest how it might be best to face a very uncertain future prospect.
My starting point is to try to place the global climate change debate in a more general context.
More here
British MP: 'Yes, I am a heretic on global warming'
By Ann Widdecombe
Much has been made of my voting with the Gov-ernment to allow the police to detain terror suspects for 42 days, rather than 28, in special cases. Yet there was a more important vote last week, in which I was one of only three Members of Parliament to vote against the might of all parties and defy the Climate Change Bill which will cost Britain hundreds of billions of pounds, will not mean any other country has to follow suit and, as we are responsible for only two per cent of the world's carbon emissions, will make no difference to the climate or to global warming.
Climate change has become a religion, with anyone who dares to throw?out?a?question?or?two instantly accused of heresy. I have had my doubts for some time, and certainly about major unilateral action on the part of the UK, but these have crystalised since reading Nigel Lawson's book An Appeal To Reason, subtitled A Cool Look At Global Warming.
Appallingly, this gem could not find?a British publisher because none was brave enough. One wrote: "My fear with this cogently argued book is that it flies so much in the face of prevailing orthodoxy that it would be very difficult to find a wide market."
Everybody who has English to GCSE standard can understand it and anyone who has uncritically swallowed the belief that the Earth is warming dangerously should open his or her mind at least a little bit.
It is a FACT that there has been no global warming this century, yet never has there been so much production of carbon dioxide, with India and China increasing their activity by the week.
It is a FACT that global temperature has varied throughout history and scientists explain this by changes in solar activity.
It is a FACT that not all climate scientists agree with the prevailing orthodoxy. Those who dare to dissent are treated with about as much respect as Galileo was by the medieval church.
Even if the predictions are true all they offer is a small increase in the globe's temperature over the next hundred years. As Lawson points out, the difference between the temperature in Finland and that in Singapore is vast but in both countries people thrive and so do their economies. Therefore we might be better off adapting rather than trying to reverse the trend.
I need not go on. You may believe one side of the argument or the other or, like me, you may suspend judgment but until matters are somewhat clearer, I am most certainly not prepared to vote to commit Britain to a course of action which will make not a jot of difference to global temperatures but which could change our way of life and leave us unable to compete with those countries that keep a better sense of proportion.
Some of the worst mistakes are made when all political parties agree. Our entry into Europe is a pretty good example with Ted Heath, Harold Wilson and Jeremy Thorpe all urging a "yes" vote and dissenters dismissed as flat-earthers. Yet what we thought we were joining (a tariff agreement and economic union) was very different from what we are now proved to have joined (a political union with gradual loss of control over our own affairs).
Healthy opposition is needed, if only to ensure that all arguments are heard. The media had a great deal to talk about last week and three MPs calling for a pause for thought over something most commentators consider a cast iron certainty did not get a great deal of attention. Yet the Bill still has some way to go before it becomes law. There is still time for a challenge if anyone is interested enough to take his head out of the sand.
Source
Declining university standards in Britain
Academic standards are in decline in many British universities. Students who would once have been failed their degrees pass, and students who would once have been awarded respectable lower seconds are now awarded upper seconds and even firsts. Students - British as well as those from overseas - commence their studies with levels of English so poor that universities run remedial English courses to ensure at least basic literacy. Cheating is rampant, encouraged partly by lenient penalties.
How do I know all this? Part of the evidence is statistical. Over the past decade the number of firsts has more than doubled, while the undergraduate population has increased by less than a half. The standard leaving qualification for most students is now an upper second - the lower second is an endangered species and the third on the verge of extinction.
A recent survey by the Higher Education Academy suggested that, of 9,000 or so cases of plagiarism recorded last year, only 143 resulted in expulsion. The survey pointed to an alarming variation in penalties. In many mainly post-1992 "new" universities, lecturers must take national, ethnic and even social background into account when punishing cheaters.
But statistical evidence is no more than a signpost. In recent years I have become alarmed and depressed at the number of inquiries I receive from usually young scholars just embarking on their careers and coming under intolerable managerial pressure to pass students who should fail and to "massage" students into higher qualifications.
It is not only probationer lecturers who are victims. Last year Paul Buckland, Professor of Environmental Archaeology at Bournemouth University, resigned in protest at the decision of university authorities that 13 students whom he - and a formal examinations board - judged to have failed a course should be passed. In so doing, the authorities appear to have endorsed the view of a senior official - an official, mind you, not an academic - that students should have been able to pass merely on the basis of lecture notes, without doing the required reading. Universities UK should have issued a formal public rebuke. Its silence on this and similar cases is a scandal. Faced with criticism that academic standards are being dumbed down, British vice-chancellors customarily point to the external examiner system as a guarantee that it cannot happen.
It can and does. In the typically modularised degree system run by the now typical university, external examiners - academic specialists from other institutions - no longer oversee the entire assessment process, and are not permitted to review individual grades. Their job, at most, is simply to ensure as best they can that correct procedures are applied. To quote from an e-mail I received yesterday from an external examiner, "the externals are not permitted to alter marks or comment on individual scripts in any way. Their function is to comment merely on adherence to procedures. I complained about this repeatedly, to no avail."
How has higher education got itself into this mess? An insidious managerial culture obsessed with league tables and newspaper rankings is partly to blame. The more firsts and upper seconds a university awards, the higher its ranking is likely to be. So each university looks closely at the grading criteria used by its near rivals in the league tables, and if they are using more lenient schemes, the argument is put about that "peer" institutions must do the same. The upholding of academic standards is replaced by a grotesque "bidding" game, in which standards are sacrificed on the altar of public image, as reflected in the rankings.
This is only part of the problem. League tables are here to stay. A robust university management, however jealous for its own reputation, will never let them dictate the terms upon which its guards its academic standards. Part of the problem stems from gross underfunding. Non-EU students attract full fees, and have become a lucrative source of cash. Failing or expelling a non-EU student can have serious implications. Was this, I wonder, why at one university last year, a lecturer was criticised for neglecting to give "token credits" to failures? In the modern, mass higher education system, there must be prizes for all, because the student is the customer and the customer must have something for his money.
What can be done about these evils? British universities are self-regulating, and I would not want it any other way. But with self-regulation comes responsibility. The representative bodies, and the Quality Assurance Agency to which all their members subscribe, should summon the courage to name and shame miscreant institutions, and perhaps even to suspend them.
Ultimately, the buck stops in the vice-chancellor's office and with the governing body that is legally responsible for the general character of the education at the university. Quality in higher education cannot be reduced to a simplistic rankings list, however appealing rankings may be to newspapers and their readers, not to mention university governors whose attention span (it seems) cannot extend beyond a set of numerical performance indicators.
When a professor says that a student should fail, the wise vice-chancellor will support that decision, and the governors will publicly congratulate both for putting first standards rather than student retention and "customer satisfaction".
Source
NHS reviewed
I am looking at a leaflet informing the public about the creation of the National Health Service, almost 60 years ago. The celebrations for this anniversary begin at the end of this month. There will be a party at Wembley Stadium, a service of celebration at Westminster Abbey, and countrywide events, most of it organised by the Department of Health in Whitehall.
Never underestimate the desire of politicians to lay claim to the NHS. For many years it was a “Labour” achievement, its strongest stick with which to beat the Conservatives. And when the next election comes, the NHS - the fate of the local hospital or GP surgery - will still account for far more votes than any esoteric arguments about 42 days' detention, or EU or climate change treaties.
Labour will suck every piece of political capital it can from the 60th anniversary party. By chance, as I write this, I receive a voicemail from Labour HQ asking whether I plan to write about the anniversary in the next fortnight. “Health ministers are very keen to start laying out where the NHS needs to go in the next few years” and one of them would be very keen to have a few words with me... The debate on polyclinics, the press officer adds, “is one very clear dividing line on modernisation”.
Poor old health service, batted from party to party, from election to election. I turn back to that leaflet from 1948: “Your new National Health Service begins on 5th July. What is it? How do you get it? It will provide you with all medical, dental, and nursing care.” And a very clear dividing line on modernisation in 60 years' time.
All medical, dental, and nursing care... you don't even need to ask the question to know that the NHS could never claim that today. NHS dental care is patchy at best, medical care is heavily rationed, and nursing care, as anyone who has spent time in hospital will tell you, is hit and miss. In part, this is due to greater demands on the health service. Whatever it offers, we want more: more treatments, more consultations, more medicine. More care. Demand has always taken the politicians by surprise: Nye Bevan estimated the initial cost of the NHS at 176 million pounds for 1948-49. Its first full year of operation came in at 437 million.
Today we want the service to meet an ever-expanding definition of health. We want it to make us happy as well as healthy, fertile as well as fit. One day we will expect it to make us beautiful, perhaps even successful too. No wonder it is still struggling on its 90 billion annual budget.
It isn't only the fault of the patients. The officials and the politicians who run the NHS have lost sight of what they are there for. Look at the current campaigns listed on the DoH website: “know your units”, “top tips for top mums” (including “top tips from Patsy Palmer” of EastEnders), and my favourite “Catch it, Bin it, Kill it”, a campaign to encourage the public to practise “correct respiratory and hand hygiene when coughing and sneezing”. The NHS waggles its finger at us, naughty children. Put your hand in front of your nose when you sneeze! It has turned into mum.
When it doesn't admonish, it consults: yesterday the department sent hospitals tens of thousands of surveys to track patient satisfaction with the patient choice programme. And when it doesn't consult, it issues edicts: June 12, 2008 - “The NHS Resilience and Business Continuity Management Guidance 2008: interim strategic national guidance for NHS organisations.” Poor guys. No wonder the best managers in the NHS are the ones who know which Whitehall edicts to file immediately in the bin.
Time after time patients tell the politicians that what they want from the NHS is what the NHS promised at the start: access to high-quality medical care (in clean premises) as and when they need it.
Now the greatest risk to the health of the NHS is approaching: the march of the alternative health industry. This week came the publication of the “Report to Ministers from the Department of Health Steering Group on the Statutory Regulation of Practitioners of Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine and Other Traditional Medicine Systems Practised in the UK”. Otherwise known as twaddle. What it said is that government should regulate alternative therapies from acupuncture to Ayurveda.
It's the latest step by the alternative health industry, spearheaded by the Prince of Wales, towards official recognition by the NHS. Their problem: doctors see no scientific merit whatsoever in most of the “treatments”. Research by Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine, has found the majority of alternative therapies to be clinically ineffective, and many dangerous.
Regulate the practitioners - for safety, note, not for efficacy, as that is impossible to prove - and you give them official recognition. From recognition it is but a short hop to demand and then prescription: packet of Prozac, bit of yoga and a bag of dodgy herbs for you, sir. Britons already spend billions on alternative medicine; how much more could they spend when it is public money floating down the colonic canal? Free massages and maharishi ayurveda for all!
And imagine the bonanza in work for the Whitehall bureaucracy, as the British Association of Accredited Ayurvedic Practitioners grapple for dominance over the Maharishi Ayurveda Physicians' Association (none of these is made up). Question 10 of the consultation document preceding Monday's report read: “Would it be possible for the herbal medicine traditions of Kampo and Tibetan herbal medicine to be individually represented on Council?”
The Government responded on Monday - with a three-month consultation. So join in. Write to the Health Minister Ben Bradshaw at Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, SW1A 2NS. Write, on behalf of the NHS: “What I want for my 60th birthday is... the chance to provide medical, dental, and nursing care to all. And absolutely nothing else.”
Source
Muslim woman not given job as a hairdresser gets $8,000 for "hurt feelings"
Since people are not usually awarded large sums of money for hurt feelings, we have to assume that Muslim feelings are especially important. So whence equality before the law?
A Muslim woman has been awarded 4,000 pounds for "injury to feelings" after a hair salon owner refused to employ her because she wears a headscarf. Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers, owner of a trendy central London hair salon, of religious discrimination after she failed to offer her a job in May last year. A panel sitting at the central London employment tribunal dismissed her claim of direct discrimination but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination.
Mrs Noah, of Acton, west London, applied for a job as a junior assistant at the Wedge salon in King's Cross. Giving its judgment, the tribunal said it accepted that Ms Desrosiers said that Mrs Noah lived too far away but was persuaded to give her an interview. But when the 19-year-old applicant arrived at the salon she claimed that the Canadian salon owner was clearly shocked by the fact she wore a headscarf.
Ms Desrosiers told the tribunal she was surprised that the younger woman had not mentioned it earlier. She said she needed stylists to reflect the "funky, urban" image of her salon and showcase alternative hairstyles. If an applicant had a conventional hairstyle she would insist that it was re-styled in a more "alternative" way, she said. After a 15-minute meeting she and Mrs Noah parted and both parties told the tribunal it was obvious that the 19-year-old would not be offered the job.
The panel refused an application by Mrs Noah for aggravated damages and rejected her claims that the episode had put her off hairdressing, finding that she applied for further salon jobs before deciding to retrain in tourism. But they did find that she had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview and awarded Mrs Noah 4,000 pounds damages for "injury to feelings".
In their judgment, the panel stated: "We were satisfied by the respondent's evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at all times when at work." But they also concluded: "There was no specific evidence before us as to what would (for sure) have been the actual impact of the claimant working in her salon with her head covered at all times. "We concluded that, on a critical and balanced assessment, the degree of risk, while real, should not be assumed to be as great at the respondent believed."
Ms Desrosiers, 32, said: "I feel it is a bit steep for what actually happened. It's really scary for a small business. "I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don't feel I deserve it." She said she still had not appointed someone to the job and had decided to "leave it for a while".
Source
The Julian Hodge Bank lecture given at Cardiff, April 2008 by Colin Robinson, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Surrey:
Many people in this audience will believe that significant changes in the world`s climate are already under way and that, in the medium to long term future, there will be further changes that will have catastrophic economic and social consequences if action is not taken in the near future to avert them. Virtually all the world`s opinion leaders subscribe to that view. As one example of this `doomsday view', take the comments of the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon who said of the scenarios in a report compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[2] in November 2007, `These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie. But they are even more terrifying, because they are real'[3]. Ban Ki-moon is talking about views of the future which cannot in any accepted sense be `real': his comment shows that the inevitability of severe climate change is now so taken for granted that the future has become merged with the present.
The hypothesis and some broad issues
Put simply, the usual hypothesis about climate change is that emissions of carbon dioxide and other `greenhouse gases', from the use of energy and from other human activities, will lead to a future trend towards warming of the earth and consequential damage to economic and social life.
There is general (though not universal) agreement that there has been some warming of the earth in the last hundred years or so, but it is relatively modest[4]. The IPCC puts the increase in global annual mean temperature at around 0.75 degrees centigrade over that period[5]. Future warming has become the main focus of concern: there is a wide range of estimates, varying from about 1 to over 6 degrees C[6], comparing the end of the twentieth century with the end of the twentyfirst century. Obviously, I cannot provide a critique of the hypothesis from a climate science viewpoint[7] but economists are in a position to comment on some of the underlying methodological issues, on the economic and social consequences of climate change and on possible policy responses and their effects. I begin by outlining the links in the chain that lead to the view that climate change will be damaging and make some initial comments on them.
1.1 A climate change trend?
Since the climate is always changing, the damaging change hypothesis is difficult to pin down, but I was careful to specify it as implying a trend towards global warming. I take it that those who support the hypothesis must think there is a such a trend. If we were merely in the upward phase of a cycle, caused by natural forces, presumably there would be much less cause for concern because, by definition, the direction of the cycle would reverse and global warming would be replaced by global cooling. Determining whether warming is a trend or just part of a cycle is extremely difficult, given the apparent very long time scale of climatic change, yet, from a policy point of view, the distinction between trend and cycle is clearly vital: if warming is to be replaced by cooling in the relatively near future, as part of the same natural cycle, action now to curb warming might well have perverse effects. The amplitude and length of any cycle are also critical issues.
1.2 The link with greenhouse gases
There is scientific evidence that, other things equal, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will bring rising world temperatures. However, in the absence of complete scientific knowledge, the list of the `other things' and their effects is long but incomplete. There is considerable controversy over the significance of man-made emissions, compared with all the other effects on temperature. Most climate scientists would, like most economists, readily admit that their models are gross simplifications and that large areas of ignorance remain. Working out what happens when other things are constant is therefore not easy and it seems that experience in the twentieth century must lead to some doubts about the exact causal link between emissions and warming: despite continuously rising emissions during the century, the warming occurred in two periods (1920-1940 and 1975-1998), with slight cooling in between the two periods and no clear trend in the last ten years or so.
Economic and social consequences
Even if it could be established that there is a clear warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions, there are still important questions to be answered about the extent to which natural adaptation will deal with any economic and social consequences or whether, if action to combat the trend should be taken, what form it might take and what the costs might be compared with the benefits. Some economists, such as Sir Nicholas (now Lord) Stern, have attempted to answer these questions and to say what actions are required[8]. But, in the process, they have used some of the most heroic assumptions I have ever seen and tried to peer into the far distant future.
Bearing in mind these broad issues, in the rest of the lecture I will try to deal with a number of matters which seem important in deciding whether scepticism is justified about claims that damaging man-made climate change is in prospect. My purpose is not to say that there is no such prospect, but to argue that the sceptics should be taken seriously and that we should be careful not to plunge into large-scale, expensive, centrally run programmes to combat prospective climate change based on the assumption that we know more about the future than is possible. After making some rather critical comments about climate alarmism in the first part of the lecture, at the end I will accentuate the positive and suggest how it might be best to face a very uncertain future prospect.
My starting point is to try to place the global climate change debate in a more general context.
More here
British MP: 'Yes, I am a heretic on global warming'
By Ann Widdecombe
Much has been made of my voting with the Gov-ernment to allow the police to detain terror suspects for 42 days, rather than 28, in special cases. Yet there was a more important vote last week, in which I was one of only three Members of Parliament to vote against the might of all parties and defy the Climate Change Bill which will cost Britain hundreds of billions of pounds, will not mean any other country has to follow suit and, as we are responsible for only two per cent of the world's carbon emissions, will make no difference to the climate or to global warming.
Climate change has become a religion, with anyone who dares to throw?out?a?question?or?two instantly accused of heresy. I have had my doubts for some time, and certainly about major unilateral action on the part of the UK, but these have crystalised since reading Nigel Lawson's book An Appeal To Reason, subtitled A Cool Look At Global Warming.
Appallingly, this gem could not find?a British publisher because none was brave enough. One wrote: "My fear with this cogently argued book is that it flies so much in the face of prevailing orthodoxy that it would be very difficult to find a wide market."
Everybody who has English to GCSE standard can understand it and anyone who has uncritically swallowed the belief that the Earth is warming dangerously should open his or her mind at least a little bit.
It is a FACT that there has been no global warming this century, yet never has there been so much production of carbon dioxide, with India and China increasing their activity by the week.
It is a FACT that global temperature has varied throughout history and scientists explain this by changes in solar activity.
It is a FACT that not all climate scientists agree with the prevailing orthodoxy. Those who dare to dissent are treated with about as much respect as Galileo was by the medieval church.
Even if the predictions are true all they offer is a small increase in the globe's temperature over the next hundred years. As Lawson points out, the difference between the temperature in Finland and that in Singapore is vast but in both countries people thrive and so do their economies. Therefore we might be better off adapting rather than trying to reverse the trend.
I need not go on. You may believe one side of the argument or the other or, like me, you may suspend judgment but until matters are somewhat clearer, I am most certainly not prepared to vote to commit Britain to a course of action which will make not a jot of difference to global temperatures but which could change our way of life and leave us unable to compete with those countries that keep a better sense of proportion.
Some of the worst mistakes are made when all political parties agree. Our entry into Europe is a pretty good example with Ted Heath, Harold Wilson and Jeremy Thorpe all urging a "yes" vote and dissenters dismissed as flat-earthers. Yet what we thought we were joining (a tariff agreement and economic union) was very different from what we are now proved to have joined (a political union with gradual loss of control over our own affairs).
Healthy opposition is needed, if only to ensure that all arguments are heard. The media had a great deal to talk about last week and three MPs calling for a pause for thought over something most commentators consider a cast iron certainty did not get a great deal of attention. Yet the Bill still has some way to go before it becomes law. There is still time for a challenge if anyone is interested enough to take his head out of the sand.
Source
Declining university standards in Britain
Academic standards are in decline in many British universities. Students who would once have been failed their degrees pass, and students who would once have been awarded respectable lower seconds are now awarded upper seconds and even firsts. Students - British as well as those from overseas - commence their studies with levels of English so poor that universities run remedial English courses to ensure at least basic literacy. Cheating is rampant, encouraged partly by lenient penalties.
How do I know all this? Part of the evidence is statistical. Over the past decade the number of firsts has more than doubled, while the undergraduate population has increased by less than a half. The standard leaving qualification for most students is now an upper second - the lower second is an endangered species and the third on the verge of extinction.
A recent survey by the Higher Education Academy suggested that, of 9,000 or so cases of plagiarism recorded last year, only 143 resulted in expulsion. The survey pointed to an alarming variation in penalties. In many mainly post-1992 "new" universities, lecturers must take national, ethnic and even social background into account when punishing cheaters.
But statistical evidence is no more than a signpost. In recent years I have become alarmed and depressed at the number of inquiries I receive from usually young scholars just embarking on their careers and coming under intolerable managerial pressure to pass students who should fail and to "massage" students into higher qualifications.
It is not only probationer lecturers who are victims. Last year Paul Buckland, Professor of Environmental Archaeology at Bournemouth University, resigned in protest at the decision of university authorities that 13 students whom he - and a formal examinations board - judged to have failed a course should be passed. In so doing, the authorities appear to have endorsed the view of a senior official - an official, mind you, not an academic - that students should have been able to pass merely on the basis of lecture notes, without doing the required reading. Universities UK should have issued a formal public rebuke. Its silence on this and similar cases is a scandal. Faced with criticism that academic standards are being dumbed down, British vice-chancellors customarily point to the external examiner system as a guarantee that it cannot happen.
It can and does. In the typically modularised degree system run by the now typical university, external examiners - academic specialists from other institutions - no longer oversee the entire assessment process, and are not permitted to review individual grades. Their job, at most, is simply to ensure as best they can that correct procedures are applied. To quote from an e-mail I received yesterday from an external examiner, "the externals are not permitted to alter marks or comment on individual scripts in any way. Their function is to comment merely on adherence to procedures. I complained about this repeatedly, to no avail."
How has higher education got itself into this mess? An insidious managerial culture obsessed with league tables and newspaper rankings is partly to blame. The more firsts and upper seconds a university awards, the higher its ranking is likely to be. So each university looks closely at the grading criteria used by its near rivals in the league tables, and if they are using more lenient schemes, the argument is put about that "peer" institutions must do the same. The upholding of academic standards is replaced by a grotesque "bidding" game, in which standards are sacrificed on the altar of public image, as reflected in the rankings.
This is only part of the problem. League tables are here to stay. A robust university management, however jealous for its own reputation, will never let them dictate the terms upon which its guards its academic standards. Part of the problem stems from gross underfunding. Non-EU students attract full fees, and have become a lucrative source of cash. Failing or expelling a non-EU student can have serious implications. Was this, I wonder, why at one university last year, a lecturer was criticised for neglecting to give "token credits" to failures? In the modern, mass higher education system, there must be prizes for all, because the student is the customer and the customer must have something for his money.
What can be done about these evils? British universities are self-regulating, and I would not want it any other way. But with self-regulation comes responsibility. The representative bodies, and the Quality Assurance Agency to which all their members subscribe, should summon the courage to name and shame miscreant institutions, and perhaps even to suspend them.
Ultimately, the buck stops in the vice-chancellor's office and with the governing body that is legally responsible for the general character of the education at the university. Quality in higher education cannot be reduced to a simplistic rankings list, however appealing rankings may be to newspapers and their readers, not to mention university governors whose attention span (it seems) cannot extend beyond a set of numerical performance indicators.
When a professor says that a student should fail, the wise vice-chancellor will support that decision, and the governors will publicly congratulate both for putting first standards rather than student retention and "customer satisfaction".
Source
NHS reviewed
I am looking at a leaflet informing the public about the creation of the National Health Service, almost 60 years ago. The celebrations for this anniversary begin at the end of this month. There will be a party at Wembley Stadium, a service of celebration at Westminster Abbey, and countrywide events, most of it organised by the Department of Health in Whitehall.
Never underestimate the desire of politicians to lay claim to the NHS. For many years it was a “Labour” achievement, its strongest stick with which to beat the Conservatives. And when the next election comes, the NHS - the fate of the local hospital or GP surgery - will still account for far more votes than any esoteric arguments about 42 days' detention, or EU or climate change treaties.
Labour will suck every piece of political capital it can from the 60th anniversary party. By chance, as I write this, I receive a voicemail from Labour HQ asking whether I plan to write about the anniversary in the next fortnight. “Health ministers are very keen to start laying out where the NHS needs to go in the next few years” and one of them would be very keen to have a few words with me... The debate on polyclinics, the press officer adds, “is one very clear dividing line on modernisation”.
Poor old health service, batted from party to party, from election to election. I turn back to that leaflet from 1948: “Your new National Health Service begins on 5th July. What is it? How do you get it? It will provide you with all medical, dental, and nursing care.” And a very clear dividing line on modernisation in 60 years' time.
All medical, dental, and nursing care... you don't even need to ask the question to know that the NHS could never claim that today. NHS dental care is patchy at best, medical care is heavily rationed, and nursing care, as anyone who has spent time in hospital will tell you, is hit and miss. In part, this is due to greater demands on the health service. Whatever it offers, we want more: more treatments, more consultations, more medicine. More care. Demand has always taken the politicians by surprise: Nye Bevan estimated the initial cost of the NHS at 176 million pounds for 1948-49. Its first full year of operation came in at 437 million.
Today we want the service to meet an ever-expanding definition of health. We want it to make us happy as well as healthy, fertile as well as fit. One day we will expect it to make us beautiful, perhaps even successful too. No wonder it is still struggling on its 90 billion annual budget.
It isn't only the fault of the patients. The officials and the politicians who run the NHS have lost sight of what they are there for. Look at the current campaigns listed on the DoH website: “know your units”, “top tips for top mums” (including “top tips from Patsy Palmer” of EastEnders), and my favourite “Catch it, Bin it, Kill it”, a campaign to encourage the public to practise “correct respiratory and hand hygiene when coughing and sneezing”. The NHS waggles its finger at us, naughty children. Put your hand in front of your nose when you sneeze! It has turned into mum.
When it doesn't admonish, it consults: yesterday the department sent hospitals tens of thousands of surveys to track patient satisfaction with the patient choice programme. And when it doesn't consult, it issues edicts: June 12, 2008 - “The NHS Resilience and Business Continuity Management Guidance 2008: interim strategic national guidance for NHS organisations.” Poor guys. No wonder the best managers in the NHS are the ones who know which Whitehall edicts to file immediately in the bin.
Time after time patients tell the politicians that what they want from the NHS is what the NHS promised at the start: access to high-quality medical care (in clean premises) as and when they need it.
Now the greatest risk to the health of the NHS is approaching: the march of the alternative health industry. This week came the publication of the “Report to Ministers from the Department of Health Steering Group on the Statutory Regulation of Practitioners of Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine, Traditional Chinese Medicine and Other Traditional Medicine Systems Practised in the UK”. Otherwise known as twaddle. What it said is that government should regulate alternative therapies from acupuncture to Ayurveda.
It's the latest step by the alternative health industry, spearheaded by the Prince of Wales, towards official recognition by the NHS. Their problem: doctors see no scientific merit whatsoever in most of the “treatments”. Research by Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine, has found the majority of alternative therapies to be clinically ineffective, and many dangerous.
Regulate the practitioners - for safety, note, not for efficacy, as that is impossible to prove - and you give them official recognition. From recognition it is but a short hop to demand and then prescription: packet of Prozac, bit of yoga and a bag of dodgy herbs for you, sir. Britons already spend billions on alternative medicine; how much more could they spend when it is public money floating down the colonic canal? Free massages and maharishi ayurveda for all!
And imagine the bonanza in work for the Whitehall bureaucracy, as the British Association of Accredited Ayurvedic Practitioners grapple for dominance over the Maharishi Ayurveda Physicians' Association (none of these is made up). Question 10 of the consultation document preceding Monday's report read: “Would it be possible for the herbal medicine traditions of Kampo and Tibetan herbal medicine to be individually represented on Council?”
The Government responded on Monday - with a three-month consultation. So join in. Write to the Health Minister Ben Bradshaw at Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, SW1A 2NS. Write, on behalf of the NHS: “What I want for my 60th birthday is... the chance to provide medical, dental, and nursing care to all. And absolutely nothing else.”
Source
Muslim woman not given job as a hairdresser gets $8,000 for "hurt feelings"
Since people are not usually awarded large sums of money for hurt feelings, we have to assume that Muslim feelings are especially important. So whence equality before the law?
A Muslim woman has been awarded 4,000 pounds for "injury to feelings" after a hair salon owner refused to employ her because she wears a headscarf. Bushra Noah accused Sarah Desrosiers, owner of a trendy central London hair salon, of religious discrimination after she failed to offer her a job in May last year. A panel sitting at the central London employment tribunal dismissed her claim of direct discrimination but upheld her complaint of indirect discrimination.
Mrs Noah, of Acton, west London, applied for a job as a junior assistant at the Wedge salon in King's Cross. Giving its judgment, the tribunal said it accepted that Ms Desrosiers said that Mrs Noah lived too far away but was persuaded to give her an interview. But when the 19-year-old applicant arrived at the salon she claimed that the Canadian salon owner was clearly shocked by the fact she wore a headscarf.
Ms Desrosiers told the tribunal she was surprised that the younger woman had not mentioned it earlier. She said she needed stylists to reflect the "funky, urban" image of her salon and showcase alternative hairstyles. If an applicant had a conventional hairstyle she would insist that it was re-styled in a more "alternative" way, she said. After a 15-minute meeting she and Mrs Noah parted and both parties told the tribunal it was obvious that the 19-year-old would not be offered the job.
The panel refused an application by Mrs Noah for aggravated damages and rejected her claims that the episode had put her off hairdressing, finding that she applied for further salon jobs before deciding to retrain in tourism. But they did find that she had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview and awarded Mrs Noah 4,000 pounds damages for "injury to feelings".
In their judgment, the panel stated: "We were satisfied by the respondent's evidence that the claimant was not treated less favourably than the respondent would have treated a woman who, whether Muslim or not, for a reason other than religious belief wears a hair covering at all times when at work." But they also concluded: "There was no specific evidence before us as to what would (for sure) have been the actual impact of the claimant working in her salon with her head covered at all times. "We concluded that, on a critical and balanced assessment, the degree of risk, while real, should not be assumed to be as great at the respondent believed."
Ms Desrosiers, 32, said: "I feel it is a bit steep for what actually happened. It's really scary for a small business. "I never in a million years dreamt that somebody would be completely against the display of hair and be in this industry. I don't feel I deserve it." She said she still had not appointed someone to the job and had decided to "leave it for a while".
Source
Thursday, June 19, 2008
British parliament decides Fatherhood is irrelevant
Last Wednesday, the British House of Commons decided that a father is completely and totally irrelevant to a child's development. The legislation in question, which dealt with in vitro fertilization, or IVF, would have included a clause requiring a fertility doctor to "consider a child's need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment," according to the news site This Is London. Even though IVF already marginalizes fathers by effectively removing them from the procreative process, feminists would not allow even this bland and toothless reference to men to stand. The clause was voted down.
This Is London went on to add that "the Government argued that the law as it stood discriminated against single women and lesbian couples - although both these groups can already get fertility treatment on the Health Service. From now on, doctors will have to consider only a child's need for 'supportive parenting'." Whatever that means.
Those of us who still celebrate Father's Day should reflect on this not simply as an isolated event, but as the latest in a long string of attacks that fatherhood has suffered at the hands of feminists and abortionists.
Modern feminists maintain that their highest goal is equality and liberty, but their agenda runs far deeper than that. It is summed up in the phrase, "bodily autonomy," an idea first developed and promoted by Margaret Sanger in her 1914 book, The Woman Rebel. This old-new catchphrase is still used by her ideological descendants. For the sex-obsessed feminism that Sanger helped create, simple equality is not enough. Women need to free themselves not only from men, but also from families, from religion, and especially from pregnancy. They must be completely free to do what they wish, when they wish, with no responsibility to anyone else but themselves.
This goal of radical autonomy essentially views men as members of an alien species. It completely ignores the complementary nature of men and women as two halves of the same race, whose bonding in lifelong, monogamous relationships is necessary for the survival, happiness and salvation of both. For this brand of feminism, the feminine defines what it means to be human. It is all there is, and it is infinitely plastic. Folk singer Ani DiFranco gleefully calls it "self-determination, and it's very open-ended: every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do."
In their quest to free themselves from the supposed bonds of male oppression, radical feminists have gone far beyond simply marginalizing and dehumanizing men. They have striven to form a world where every function that has historically been performed by men can be performed by women, with the aid of technology. Their goal is to render fathers and husbands not only unnecessary, but completely superfluous. Even the terms "father" and "husband" are to be rendered out-of-style and obsolete, odd relics from a bygone age, snatches of a song no longer sung.
This predictably wreaks havoc on the family, whose structure follows an age-old reproductive logic: a man, a woman, and the children that they procreate or adopt. If women are autonomous beings, answerable only to themselves, then the family loses its fundamental meaning. It must be redefined in nonbiological ways, and become infinitely inclusive.
Gender itself becomes fluid, as in California, where what bathroom one chooses to enter depends not upon one's genitalia, but upon what gender one has adopted that day. And, of course, ways must be found not only to exist, but to procreate, without men. The Amazons of legend kept men in cages; the radical feminists, assisted by modern technology, keep only the biologically necessary germ cells in test tubes, with abortion as a backup in case the experiment goes awry. If men attempted to build a society on such principles, it would rightly be considered insanity. But when radical feminists do it, it is merely "feminism."
The pro-life movement faces multiple tasks. It is not enough simply to overturn back laws and change attitudes about abortion, contraception and sex. The very fabric of the relationship between men and women must be stitched back together. What radical feminists do not realize is that by exploding the family, they are destroying the institution that has protected most women over most of human history from abuse. If men are not to be allowed to grow into their vital role as husbands and fathers, then they will simply use, violate and abandon women. The radical feminists are thus exacerbating the very attitudes and trends among men that they purport to be trying to escape.
One of the keys to ending abortion is to reinvigorate fatherhood. Intact, functioning and loving families protect their youngest and most vulnerable members. Isolated individuals - of either sex - do not.
Source
British teachers bad at mathematics
Most just barely scraped through middle-school math
Teachers would be paid 1,000 pounds to attend week-long summer schools in maths under proposals to improve teaching of the subject in England's 17,000 primary schools. The recommendation is outlined today in a major review of maths teaching in primary schools by Sir Peter Williams, a distinguished academic and businessman who chairs the Government's Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education. Sir Peter's report, seen by The Times, exposes how poorly equipped primary schools are to teach maths, noting that the highest qualification in the subject held by most primary teachers is grade C GCSE, often gained a decade or more before they embarked on teacher-training.
Only 227 of the 10,000 trainee primary teachers recruited on to PGCE (Post Graduate Certificate in Education) courses, or 2.3 per cent, have previously studied maths, science, technology or engineering to degree level.
The review, commissioned personally by Gordon Brown amid concerns that almost a quarter of 11-year-olds are failing to meet the expected standards in numeracy, calls for every primary school to appoint a maths specialist. These would be required to develop a deep "mathematical subject and pedagogical knowledge" to masters degree level so they could coach colleagues in the subject. "We have good reason to believe that the last maths training for the average primary teacher is their GCSE maths. That does not constitute a basis for pedagogical understanding," Sir Peter said.
The review rejects the idea of raising the minimum entry requirement for a teaching degree from grade C GCSE to either A level or AS level maths. Even raising it to a grade B GCSE would prevent large numbers of candidates from applying. Instead the review says that a nominated maths specialist from each primary school should be required to attend a week-long summer school at a university or other training institution for three consecutive years. They would be paid œ1,000 each time.
During their three summer school courses, teachers would build up credits towards a masters level qualification, which they could complete after two further years of part-time study. Maths specialists attaining a masters level qualification qualify for a one-off payment of 2,500 pounds.
Sir Peter is also proposing that an incentive payment of 5,000 pounds be made to trainee teachers who undertake a maths-focused PGCE course, with half the money paid up front and the remainder when the teacher achieves maths specialist status. Similar payments already exist for those training to teach maths at secondary school. Sir Peter estimates that the programme will cost less than 20 million a year. "It should be seen as an investment in the nation's future, not as a cost," he said.
Training for childminders and nursery workers should include appropriate mathematical content so that children could start learning their numbers through play from an early age. The review also says that schools should actively engage parents in maths workshops or with maths home-work that the whole family can join in. It was essential, if children were to grow up feeling confident about their maths abilities, that schools and parents combat the pervasive "can't do" attitude to maths, that appeared to be unique to Britain, Sir Peter said.
The review concludes that the current primary curriculum should remain, although it recommends a greater emphasis on the use of maths in everyday life. Mark Siswick, joint head teacher of Chesterton Primary School in Battersea, South London, which already has a maths specialist teacher, said: "Her role is to skill up other teachers. Once you do that, if teachers are strong, confident and enthusiastic, they will transmit that to the children."
Source
Disgraceful act by British hospital
Mother was accused of kidnapping baby as part of hospital exercise
An unsuspecting mother was accused by hospital staff taking part in a security exercise of stealing a baby from a ward as she left the building with her new daughter. Clare Bowker, 37, was confronted by staff as she got into her car outside Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. She was asked to accompany them to the maternity unit with Hannah, her seven-week-old baby, and her other daughter Holly, then four, where she was told a baby had been snatched. Mrs Bowker was questioned by police and her bag searched to verify her identity.
She was recognised by her midwife who confirmed that Mrs Bowker had given birth to Hannah by caesarean section at the hospital seven weeks earlier. During the same exercise, it was arranged for another baby to be taken off the ward, with the father's consent, to make staff believe a baby had genuinely been lost.
A distressed Mrs Bowker was allowed to leave the hospital after 40 minutes, still believing the situation was real. It was only when she called the midwife a few hours later that she was informed she had been involved in a "staged" staff training event. She suffered post traumatic stress after the experience in December 2005 and underwent a year of counselling over what the hospital has called a case of "mistaken identity". The Good Hope Hospital Trust has agreed to pay her undisclosed compensation, believed to be a five-figure sum, to cover her suffering and loss of earnings.
Mrs Bowker, of Four Oaks, West Midlands, said: "It is an awful thing to be accused of and I want to make sure nobody else has to go through what I went through. "I think I am a strong person, but you can be quite vulnerable so soon after giving birth. If somebody in management had approached me on the day and asked me to take part in some kind of exercise, I probably would have done so. "Instead they targeted me and the 40 minutes felt like hours. They clearly made no risk assessment, they didn't use actors and they also put the staff members through a very stressful ordeal."
She gave up her job as a conference manager at Birmingham's Aston University and now works four hours a week as a support tutor at Sutton Coldfield College. Mrs Bowker added: "For a long time I was blaming myself for my reaction. I would burst into tears for no reason. I thought I was being silly for getting so upset. "Then I was told I had post-traumatic stress disorder."
A spokesman for Good Hope Hospital said they had apologised to Mrs Bowker for her experience. He said: "The safety of babies in our maternity unit is very important so we regularly carry out routine exercises to ensure our ward and security staff know what to do to prevent babies being unlawfully taken from the unit. "Unfortunately on one occasion in 2005, there was a case of mistaken identity in which a member of the public, Mrs Bowker, was caught up in an exercise. "A full investigation of the incident was carried out and we have apologised for this mistake and compensated Mrs Bowker for her inconvenience and embarrassment."
The Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, which now manages the hospital, said it did not carry out such exercises and uses alternative methods to test security procedures.
Source
Last Wednesday, the British House of Commons decided that a father is completely and totally irrelevant to a child's development. The legislation in question, which dealt with in vitro fertilization, or IVF, would have included a clause requiring a fertility doctor to "consider a child's need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment," according to the news site This Is London. Even though IVF already marginalizes fathers by effectively removing them from the procreative process, feminists would not allow even this bland and toothless reference to men to stand. The clause was voted down.
This Is London went on to add that "the Government argued that the law as it stood discriminated against single women and lesbian couples - although both these groups can already get fertility treatment on the Health Service. From now on, doctors will have to consider only a child's need for 'supportive parenting'." Whatever that means.
Those of us who still celebrate Father's Day should reflect on this not simply as an isolated event, but as the latest in a long string of attacks that fatherhood has suffered at the hands of feminists and abortionists.
Modern feminists maintain that their highest goal is equality and liberty, but their agenda runs far deeper than that. It is summed up in the phrase, "bodily autonomy," an idea first developed and promoted by Margaret Sanger in her 1914 book, The Woman Rebel. This old-new catchphrase is still used by her ideological descendants. For the sex-obsessed feminism that Sanger helped create, simple equality is not enough. Women need to free themselves not only from men, but also from families, from religion, and especially from pregnancy. They must be completely free to do what they wish, when they wish, with no responsibility to anyone else but themselves.
This goal of radical autonomy essentially views men as members of an alien species. It completely ignores the complementary nature of men and women as two halves of the same race, whose bonding in lifelong, monogamous relationships is necessary for the survival, happiness and salvation of both. For this brand of feminism, the feminine defines what it means to be human. It is all there is, and it is infinitely plastic. Folk singer Ani DiFranco gleefully calls it "self-determination, and it's very open-ended: every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do."
In their quest to free themselves from the supposed bonds of male oppression, radical feminists have gone far beyond simply marginalizing and dehumanizing men. They have striven to form a world where every function that has historically been performed by men can be performed by women, with the aid of technology. Their goal is to render fathers and husbands not only unnecessary, but completely superfluous. Even the terms "father" and "husband" are to be rendered out-of-style and obsolete, odd relics from a bygone age, snatches of a song no longer sung.
This predictably wreaks havoc on the family, whose structure follows an age-old reproductive logic: a man, a woman, and the children that they procreate or adopt. If women are autonomous beings, answerable only to themselves, then the family loses its fundamental meaning. It must be redefined in nonbiological ways, and become infinitely inclusive.
Gender itself becomes fluid, as in California, where what bathroom one chooses to enter depends not upon one's genitalia, but upon what gender one has adopted that day. And, of course, ways must be found not only to exist, but to procreate, without men. The Amazons of legend kept men in cages; the radical feminists, assisted by modern technology, keep only the biologically necessary germ cells in test tubes, with abortion as a backup in case the experiment goes awry. If men attempted to build a society on such principles, it would rightly be considered insanity. But when radical feminists do it, it is merely "feminism."
The pro-life movement faces multiple tasks. It is not enough simply to overturn back laws and change attitudes about abortion, contraception and sex. The very fabric of the relationship between men and women must be stitched back together. What radical feminists do not realize is that by exploding the family, they are destroying the institution that has protected most women over most of human history from abuse. If men are not to be allowed to grow into their vital role as husbands and fathers, then they will simply use, violate and abandon women. The radical feminists are thus exacerbating the very attitudes and trends among men that they purport to be trying to escape.
One of the keys to ending abortion is to reinvigorate fatherhood. Intact, functioning and loving families protect their youngest and most vulnerable members. Isolated individuals - of either sex - do not.
Source
British teachers bad at mathematics
Most just barely scraped through middle-school math
Teachers would be paid 1,000 pounds to attend week-long summer schools in maths under proposals to improve teaching of the subject in England's 17,000 primary schools. The recommendation is outlined today in a major review of maths teaching in primary schools by Sir Peter Williams, a distinguished academic and businessman who chairs the Government's Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education. Sir Peter's report, seen by The Times, exposes how poorly equipped primary schools are to teach maths, noting that the highest qualification in the subject held by most primary teachers is grade C GCSE, often gained a decade or more before they embarked on teacher-training.
Only 227 of the 10,000 trainee primary teachers recruited on to PGCE (Post Graduate Certificate in Education) courses, or 2.3 per cent, have previously studied maths, science, technology or engineering to degree level.
The review, commissioned personally by Gordon Brown amid concerns that almost a quarter of 11-year-olds are failing to meet the expected standards in numeracy, calls for every primary school to appoint a maths specialist. These would be required to develop a deep "mathematical subject and pedagogical knowledge" to masters degree level so they could coach colleagues in the subject. "We have good reason to believe that the last maths training for the average primary teacher is their GCSE maths. That does not constitute a basis for pedagogical understanding," Sir Peter said.
The review rejects the idea of raising the minimum entry requirement for a teaching degree from grade C GCSE to either A level or AS level maths. Even raising it to a grade B GCSE would prevent large numbers of candidates from applying. Instead the review says that a nominated maths specialist from each primary school should be required to attend a week-long summer school at a university or other training institution for three consecutive years. They would be paid œ1,000 each time.
During their three summer school courses, teachers would build up credits towards a masters level qualification, which they could complete after two further years of part-time study. Maths specialists attaining a masters level qualification qualify for a one-off payment of 2,500 pounds.
Sir Peter is also proposing that an incentive payment of 5,000 pounds be made to trainee teachers who undertake a maths-focused PGCE course, with half the money paid up front and the remainder when the teacher achieves maths specialist status. Similar payments already exist for those training to teach maths at secondary school. Sir Peter estimates that the programme will cost less than 20 million a year. "It should be seen as an investment in the nation's future, not as a cost," he said.
Training for childminders and nursery workers should include appropriate mathematical content so that children could start learning their numbers through play from an early age. The review also says that schools should actively engage parents in maths workshops or with maths home-work that the whole family can join in. It was essential, if children were to grow up feeling confident about their maths abilities, that schools and parents combat the pervasive "can't do" attitude to maths, that appeared to be unique to Britain, Sir Peter said.
The review concludes that the current primary curriculum should remain, although it recommends a greater emphasis on the use of maths in everyday life. Mark Siswick, joint head teacher of Chesterton Primary School in Battersea, South London, which already has a maths specialist teacher, said: "Her role is to skill up other teachers. Once you do that, if teachers are strong, confident and enthusiastic, they will transmit that to the children."
Source
Disgraceful act by British hospital
Mother was accused of kidnapping baby as part of hospital exercise
An unsuspecting mother was accused by hospital staff taking part in a security exercise of stealing a baby from a ward as she left the building with her new daughter. Clare Bowker, 37, was confronted by staff as she got into her car outside Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. She was asked to accompany them to the maternity unit with Hannah, her seven-week-old baby, and her other daughter Holly, then four, where she was told a baby had been snatched. Mrs Bowker was questioned by police and her bag searched to verify her identity.
She was recognised by her midwife who confirmed that Mrs Bowker had given birth to Hannah by caesarean section at the hospital seven weeks earlier. During the same exercise, it was arranged for another baby to be taken off the ward, with the father's consent, to make staff believe a baby had genuinely been lost.
A distressed Mrs Bowker was allowed to leave the hospital after 40 minutes, still believing the situation was real. It was only when she called the midwife a few hours later that she was informed she had been involved in a "staged" staff training event. She suffered post traumatic stress after the experience in December 2005 and underwent a year of counselling over what the hospital has called a case of "mistaken identity". The Good Hope Hospital Trust has agreed to pay her undisclosed compensation, believed to be a five-figure sum, to cover her suffering and loss of earnings.
Mrs Bowker, of Four Oaks, West Midlands, said: "It is an awful thing to be accused of and I want to make sure nobody else has to go through what I went through. "I think I am a strong person, but you can be quite vulnerable so soon after giving birth. If somebody in management had approached me on the day and asked me to take part in some kind of exercise, I probably would have done so. "Instead they targeted me and the 40 minutes felt like hours. They clearly made no risk assessment, they didn't use actors and they also put the staff members through a very stressful ordeal."
She gave up her job as a conference manager at Birmingham's Aston University and now works four hours a week as a support tutor at Sutton Coldfield College. Mrs Bowker added: "For a long time I was blaming myself for my reaction. I would burst into tears for no reason. I thought I was being silly for getting so upset. "Then I was told I had post-traumatic stress disorder."
A spokesman for Good Hope Hospital said they had apologised to Mrs Bowker for her experience. He said: "The safety of babies in our maternity unit is very important so we regularly carry out routine exercises to ensure our ward and security staff know what to do to prevent babies being unlawfully taken from the unit. "Unfortunately on one occasion in 2005, there was a case of mistaken identity in which a member of the public, Mrs Bowker, was caught up in an exercise. "A full investigation of the incident was carried out and we have apologised for this mistake and compensated Mrs Bowker for her inconvenience and embarrassment."
The Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, which now manages the hospital, said it did not carry out such exercises and uses alternative methods to test security procedures.
Source
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Many NHS trusts fail to meet hygiene standards
More than a quarter of health trusts in England are failing to meet basic hygiene standards, official figures show today. The Healthcare Commission reports that no improvement has been made on a year ago. In total, 103 out of 391 trusts admitted they did not achieve the minimum requirements, brought in by the Government to help combat the hospital superbugs, MRSA and Clostridium difficile.
Patients groups and politicians said that it was "shocking" that one in four still did not meet the standards, despite ministers' pledges to tackle cleanliness.
More than 8,000 deaths were related to MRSA and C. diff. The report shows that 26 per cent of trusts failed to keep facilities clean, did not have adequate infection control or follow guidelines on decontaminating reusable equipment. Only 40 per cent of trusts claim to have met all the Governments standards, which include patient care and confidentiality as well as hygiene, a slight fall on last year.
The commission warns that even fewer trusts may be deemed to have met all the criteria by the time it finishes spot checks this year. The failings come despite a [stupid] 50 million pound "deep clean" of every hospital in England, designed to curb superbugs.
Despite the critical reaction, Ben Bradshaw, the health minister, said that he welcomed the fact that the number of trusts failing to comply with more than seven standards had fallen from 15. "This improvement is a great tribute to the hard work of NHS staff," he said. "We are also pleased that infection control is showing significant improvement."
Source
The British are still lovers of liberty
But let's not forget the EU is as much a threat to our freedom as the surveillance state
By William Rees-Mogg
My wife, Gillian, is the chairman of the trustees of St John's Smith Square. Last Thursday evening, the hall was being used for the BBC's Question Time. We were watching the discussion from the balcony; David Dimbleby kindly invited us to supper after the show. The last time I had seen Question Time live is now 25 years ago, when Robin Day was in the chair.
On Thursday evening, the Irish had voted on the Lisbon treaty, but we did not yet know the result. David Davis had announced that he was going to resign his seat in order to fight a by-election on issues of liberty. Only one member of the panel seemed to regard the Davis story as really important; that was Shirley Williams, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. She spoke of Mr Davis's decision with considerable sympathy, more sympathy than I would have expected. Not for the first time, her judgment of a political issue was better than mine. The British people feel very strongly about the current issues of liberty; I admit that I think that Baroness Williams underrates their concern about liberty in Europe.
After supper, we drove down to Somerset late in the evening. Friday was, for me, a very enjoyable day. I had not expected the Irish to vote "no" to the Lisbon treaty; that seemed too good to be true after every other democratic defence against a bad treaty had failed. Only last Wednesday, the House of Lords had voted down Britain's promised referendum by 280 votes to 218. I found myself voting for the referendum in the same lobby as Margaret Thatcher, just as I had when I voted for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. I thought it was shameful that the Labour and Lib Dem peers would not honour the manifesto commitments of the 2005 general election. But, then, I had thought it shameful when Tory peers tamely obeyed their whips and voted down a referendum for Maastricht.
Saturday was a perfect Somerset day; we sat in the garden from lunch to tea. Two of our grandchildren were staying with us and two more had come across in the morning. Our youngest daughter, Annunziata, who is the Conservative candidate for Somerton & Frome, went off to canvas in villages near Bruton, including Pitcombe, where our eldest daughter lives, and Shepton Montague, where a lot of our ancestors are buried. Annunziata was able to bring back to us a fresh and up-to-date report on public opinion in southeast Somerset.
As I expected, the Irish vote had been greeted with delight. Earlier in the year, we had a local referendum in Somerset & Frome on the Lisbon treaty. Eighty-seven per cent wanted a referendum on the treaty and 88 per cent stated that they would vote "no" if a referendum were given. The local MP, David Heath, resigned from the Lib Dem front bench in the Commons rather than follow Nick Clegg's three-line whip to abstain.
What I had not foreseen was the impact of the Davis resignation. Annunziata found that Lib Dem voters identified most strongly with the Davis campaign, to the point at which Mr Davis seemed to be validating the Conservatives as a party prepared to fight on liberal issues. There seems to have been a similar reaction among Labour rebels, some of whom say they will go up to Haltemprice and campaign for him. Pragmatists may have failed to recognise the impact of his personal declaration or the strength of public feeling on libertarian issues.
For the Libs Dems themselves, there is a snag in this, or perhaps two snags. The first, as Lady Williams immediately saw, is that Mr Davis is not campaigning on right-wing issues, but on traditional issues of personal liberty. The second snag is that Europe is itself a liberal issue, but one on which the Liberal Democrats as a party are on the anti-liberal side. If the Lib Dem peers had voted with the Conservatives in the Lords, the Lisbon Bill would have gone back to the Commons with a clause providing for a British referendum. We would not have had to leave our liberties for the Irish to protect.
The origin of the Lisbon treaty was the constitutional treaty, which was drafted by the European Constitutional Convention, which was controlled by Val‚ry Giscard d'Estaing as its chairman. In the Convention, the democratic deficit, which was supposed to be eliminated, was deepened and entrenched. The constitutional treaty was put to the vote in several European countries. Spain voted "yes", but France voted "no", as did the Netherlands. The European people do not want to transfer further powers away from their elected parliaments to the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.
The EU responded to the French and Dutch votes not by recognising the public concerns about liberty and democracy, but by trying to avoid any public votes in the future. In every country except Ireland, this policy of avoiding democracy was successful, though there are still a few to come. The avoidance of a referendum was even successful in Britain, where all the major parties had committed themselves to a vote. Only the Conservatives honoured their commitment.
What may happen next? There will be an attempt to rescue the substance of the Lisbon treaty in some form or through some subterfuge. Brussels, like the Clintons, is extremely reluctant to recognise defeat. The European politicians want their legal identity, their extended powers, their president, their foreign minister. They want the status of a national state. But referendums will go against them, as the referendum went against them in Ireland.
The Prime Minister has no feeling for these developments in public opinion. He is creating an ever larger surveillance state and accepts the European democratic deficit. There is now no national consensus to ratify the Lisbon treaty and it would be a grave blunder to do so.
Source
BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS CLASH OVER CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
The "apocalyptic visions" of environmentalists are not justified by the evidence about global warming, according to a Midland MP. John Maples (Con Stratford) told the House of Commons he did not believe scientists really understood what was happening to the earth's climate. He sounded a note of scepticism in a debate which highlighted the lack of consensus among Britain's politicians about the environment.
Black Country MP Rob Marris (Lab Wolverhampton South West) told colleagues to "wake up and smell the coffee" and accept the world was not going to stop creating the pollution believed to cause global warming. Most MPs and staff failed even to turn the lights off in the Commons toilets, he said. Britain should focus on how it was going to cope with global warming, instead of hoping it could avoid the problem by cutting back on carbon emissions, he said.
They were speaking during a debate on the Climate Change Bill, which will set a legally binding target for reducing UK carbon dioxide emissions by at least 26 per cent by 2020. Mr Maples said: "Until a couple of months ago, I was happily riding this consensus and accepted the received wisdom. I thought it was probably being exaggerated a bit, but then people usually do that. However, I then made the mistake of reading a few books and quite a lot of analysis ... that has led me to a couple of conclusions that trouble me a lot.
"I do not believe that the science is anything like as settled as the proponents of the Bill are making out. In fact, the scientists hedge their predictions with an awful lot of qualifications and maybes that those who invoke them often omit. "The science is a bit like medicine in the 1850s. The scientists are scratching the surface of something that they do not really understand, but no doubt will. "They are probably on to something, but nothing like the whole story. What they say does not justify any of the apocalyptic visions that we have heard set out."
He said none of the models scientists had developed to predict how carbon emissions might affect the environment could account for the climate change that had actually taken place. "The record shows that the climate warmed from 1920 to 1940, cooled from 1940 to 1975, rose again from 1975 to 2000, and since 2000 ... has not risen at all. In the past seven years, global temperatures have not increased."
Mr Marris was also sceptical about plans to reduce carbon emissions, but for different reasons. He said: "I welcome the Bill and I accept that human activity is affecting the climate adversely. I am not a flat-earther." But he did not accept the "cosy consensus" that everything would be fine if plans were made to cut carbon dioxide emissions, he said. Emissions were currently going up rather than down, he added.
Some MPs were calling for an 80 per cent cut, he said. "I say to honourable members, `wake up and smell the coffee'. We are not going to achieve 80 per cent - it will be hard to reach 60 per cent, if we consider the number of air trips our constituents make."
Global warming would affect Britain's plans, wildlife and food production, he said. "They will affect issues such as building design and planning regulations; roads and railways, with rails buckling in the heat; water supply, with a need for new reservoirs; what we have to do about coastal defences with rising sea levels; inland flooding, which we saw dramatically last year and which will only get worse; possible civil unrest and its security implications, which other countries and, potentially, we will face; and international development."
Source
NORTHERN IRELAND'S NEW ENVIRONMENT MINISTER IS AN OUTSPOKEN CLIMATE SCEPTIC
There has been a mixed reaction to East Antrim representative Sammy Wilson's appointment as Environment Minister, following a reshuffle of the DUP's Stormont team. Amid the back-slapping over the Assemblyman and MP's elevation to the Executive has come sharp criticism from leading environmentalists over the local politician's "sceptical" views on climate change.
Mr. Wilson, who replaces DUP colleague Arlene Foster in the post, said he was "very happy" to take on a job in which he could deal with issues affecting the people of East Antrim. He cited in particular the planning system which had caused "much frustration for many people". Mr. Wilson added: "I am also keen to ensure that we protect the beauty of Northern Ireland and keep it in its current state for future generations to enjoy. "There is also an important job be done with local government: I want to see efficient councils in Northern Ireland which provide good services and are accountable for what they do." ...
Mr. Wilson's promotion brought a less favourable response from other quarters. The Green Party expressed disappointment at Mr. Wilson's "climate change sceptic views" and urged him to refrain from commenting on the subject until he has acquainted himself with the findings of the Inter-governmental Panel on climate change.
Said Green Party MLA Brian Wilson: "Sammy Wilson has a duty to the people of Northern Ireland and the environment to ensure that his comments are evidence-based and not the uninformed babble of someone who should be spending more time reading his First Day briefs." He urged the East Antrim politician to attend UN talks on climate change, adding: "No serious scientist has attributed all climate change to human activity. "Even the school children of Northern Ireland understand the distinction."
Mr. Wilson's appointment also caused raised eyebrows within environmental group, Friends of the Earth. Describing the move as "a mistake," the organisation's Northern Ireland director, John Woods, commented: "Mr Wilson is well known for his sceptical views on climate change. "It is difficult to see how a Minister who holds such views in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence could be a credible protector of our environment. But the test will be how Sammy Wilson approaches his new responsibilities. "The jury is out on this appointment - he has a good deal to prove."
Responding to the criticism, the new Environment Minister said: "I am not convinced and I don't think that there is any firm evidence to show that all climate change is due to CO2 emissions. "I think we have to make sure we do not allow the agenda for NI to be dominated by the people who can sometimes be described as green fanatics."
More here
What schools need most is a motivated principal who is left alone by the bureaucrats
The item hardly made the morning news. [British] Government inspectors had discovered 14 "failed" schools that had suddenly become successes. Some bright spark thought it worth asking why. The answer came as a bolt of lightning: that all had benefited from something called leadership. It was the one common thread.
When stuck for an answer to a problem, I turn to the maxim known as Ockham's razor. It states: "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora," or do not apply many things to a task that can be done with few. It was brilliantly "razored" by the American marines to KISS, "keep it simple, stupid".
In modern state education, Ockham's razor is tantamount to knife crime. It lacks bureaucratic complexity. Its application demands no expertise, no grand staff, no research budget, no office blocks with atriums. Its mere mention endangers thousands of nonjobs, threatening to send former teachers now screwing up the school system back where they belong, in the schools.
Not a week passes without these people inventing for ministers a new and expensive quick fix for bad schools, an academy, a foundation, a trust, a "please look at me, I'm a minister" initiative. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these upheavals work, but each has its dedicated bureaucracy, its budget and its spin doctor.
Now along comes Ofsted, the schools inspectorate, and lets the cat out of the bag. If you want a good school, get the right head. Sack bad heads and appoint good ones. Give them the money and leave them alone. If they do not work, sack them again. Good heads are not made, except in the forge of experience. Mostly they are born.
In his charming novel Mister Pip, Lloyd Jones tells of an educated man living on a Polynesian island from which civil war has driven all public servants. The islanders plead with him to teach their children, for which he has no skills, books or equipment. All he has is an old copy of Great Expectations, which becomes his sole teaching aid. He requires nothing but his own personality, and that of Dickens.
The answers to most institutional problems are that simple. Ofsted approached 14 schools that were so dysfunctional as to be under "special measures". Each had shown dramatic improvement in 2003-7, in both exam performance and pupil behaviour. There had been a calculated programme of discipline, school uniform and subdivision into houses, and a promoting of school pride and identity.
While the report's jargon was close to gibberish, the message was clear: only a highly motivated staff would deliver "a whole-school identity and sense of belonging . . . an evident pride in recognising collective achievement". Then came the sting. The inspectors found that all depended on the courage, risk-taking and autonomy of one person, the head teacher, and on that person being left alone. Indeed, "outside help can actually make things worse . . . with a potential to create more problems and slow the pace of improvement". Local councils do best to disengage or, as the report put it, "manage robust exit strategies".
This finding echoes a 2006 report that found one in five English schools did not have a permanent head at all, and one in three vacancies had to be readvertised. The reason was that targetry and crushing paperwork had greatly reduced the appeal of running a modern state school and teachers were just not interested. The chief task of an English school head is to man the battlements to fight off marauding bands of ministers and officials. As one said to me: "They make the hoodies at the school gate look like a bunch of patsies."
Hansard reported that in one year under Labour the schools ministry sent out 3,840 pages of instructions to head teachers. Back in 2005 the "head teacher of the year" publicly attributed her success to "ignoring all government strategies". In March 2006 the chief examiner, Ken Boston, confessed that at British schools the "assessment load is huge . . . far greater than in other countries and not necessary for the purpose".
The centralisation of school administration has clearly not worked. The schools secretary, Ed Balls, admitted recently that we have "gone backwards" compared with the rest of Europe. He seemed bereft of any solution, other than yet more central initiatives.
Finding good leaders and then leaving them alone runs counter to Balls's entire outlook and Treasury upbringing. As he and his schools minister, Andrew Adonis, showed last week in yet another reorganisation of secondary education, their preferred route to improvement is through targets, regulations, inspections and the humiliating threat of closure. Balls publicly listed 638 schools on his hitlist, an act of mass demoralisation worthy of the Inquisition.
Towards the end of his career as a management pundit, the late C Northcote Parkinson retreated into what many saw as his least original phase. His famous "laws" had passed into the language, but none had had any effect. Paperwork still proliferated, work expanded to fill the time available and staff hired to do half-jobs still needed assistants. The one common trait that Parkinson could detect in all management success was that will-o'-the-wisp, leadership. An inspirational and determined leader defied his laws and moved bureaucratic mountains. Nothing else could do the trick. Parkinson's fans were contemptuous. How banal, they said. The genius had met old age.
The same response was given by the BBC to the Ofsted report on failing schools. Informed that the key lay in leadership, the interviewer remarked coldly: "But isn't that a statement of the blindingly obvious?" and turned to the next item. The BBC worships at the shrine of management consultancy and gorges on complexity. It cannot handle Ockham's razor. It loathes the simple answer.
Ofsted's discovery is of wider application than just to schools. As we watch the agony that Alan Johnson and his predecessors have inflicted on the National Health Service, we see the same syndrome. When anything is wrong with a hospital or health centre, the cure lies in reorganisation. There must, to use the prime minister's motto, be "solution through change". I think not. Public services are supplied by humans led by humans.
Whenever a hospital has in some sense failed, the cry is heard, "Bring back the matron", and some eager minister promises it. He then appoints 10 administrators over her head. These administrators have to be paid "incentive bonuses" just to do their jobs, defined as not to lead but to meet an external target. Nothing works.
We eulogise the simplistic managerial skills of an Alan Sugar, yet refuse to apply the lesson to the public sector. Top-down public administration in Britain is now obsessively complex. Last week it was announced that "popular schools will be allowed to take up to 26 extra pupils a year above their official limit, ministers propose". What on earth has such a detail to do with ministers? Such meddling reflects a lack of confidence in people to do good work. It ranks with the bonus fixation and targetry as a sure way of destroying professional self-esteem.
The cult of leadership was derided in the last century by the countervailing cult of management as shrouded in ugly connotations of superiority. The managerialists implied that running a human institution was a matter of technical skill, one that could be quantified, incentivised and taught. This appealed to the control tendencies of Whitehall. It reflected a lack of faith in the ability of democrats to hold institutions to account, be they schools, hospitals, care homes, police forces or even prisons - despite such accountability operating across the rest of Europe to general public satisfaction. Not a single cabinet minister to my knowledge has ever run an institution and thus known what it is like to deal with a cabinet minister on the rampage.
Leadership is notoriously indefinable and therefore hard to ordain from above. It lies in unexpected and untutored places, possessed for instance by Tony Blair but sadly not by Gordon Brown. It is unpredictable but essential to the running of institutions, often revealed only by trial and error. Ofsted has detected it in 14 lucky schools. Will the rest get the message?
Source
British PM comes through on Iran sanctions, Afghan troop increase: "There were questions surrounding Gordon Brown when he became Great Britain's Prime Minister. Taking office with echoes of "lap dog" following his predecessor Tony Blair, many wondered just how committed Brown would be to the "Special Relationship" between the US and Great Britain and whether he would initiate a more independent course in foreign affairs. Brown may yet eschew supporting the US on many issues. But on increasing sanctions on Iran and sending additional troops to Afghanistan - two things the US devoutly wished Brown would accede to - the British Prime Minister has come through."
More than a quarter of health trusts in England are failing to meet basic hygiene standards, official figures show today. The Healthcare Commission reports that no improvement has been made on a year ago. In total, 103 out of 391 trusts admitted they did not achieve the minimum requirements, brought in by the Government to help combat the hospital superbugs, MRSA and Clostridium difficile.
Patients groups and politicians said that it was "shocking" that one in four still did not meet the standards, despite ministers' pledges to tackle cleanliness.
More than 8,000 deaths were related to MRSA and C. diff. The report shows that 26 per cent of trusts failed to keep facilities clean, did not have adequate infection control or follow guidelines on decontaminating reusable equipment. Only 40 per cent of trusts claim to have met all the Governments standards, which include patient care and confidentiality as well as hygiene, a slight fall on last year.
The commission warns that even fewer trusts may be deemed to have met all the criteria by the time it finishes spot checks this year. The failings come despite a [stupid] 50 million pound "deep clean" of every hospital in England, designed to curb superbugs.
Despite the critical reaction, Ben Bradshaw, the health minister, said that he welcomed the fact that the number of trusts failing to comply with more than seven standards had fallen from 15. "This improvement is a great tribute to the hard work of NHS staff," he said. "We are also pleased that infection control is showing significant improvement."
Source
The British are still lovers of liberty
But let's not forget the EU is as much a threat to our freedom as the surveillance state
By William Rees-Mogg
My wife, Gillian, is the chairman of the trustees of St John's Smith Square. Last Thursday evening, the hall was being used for the BBC's Question Time. We were watching the discussion from the balcony; David Dimbleby kindly invited us to supper after the show. The last time I had seen Question Time live is now 25 years ago, when Robin Day was in the chair.
On Thursday evening, the Irish had voted on the Lisbon treaty, but we did not yet know the result. David Davis had announced that he was going to resign his seat in order to fight a by-election on issues of liberty. Only one member of the panel seemed to regard the Davis story as really important; that was Shirley Williams, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. She spoke of Mr Davis's decision with considerable sympathy, more sympathy than I would have expected. Not for the first time, her judgment of a political issue was better than mine. The British people feel very strongly about the current issues of liberty; I admit that I think that Baroness Williams underrates their concern about liberty in Europe.
After supper, we drove down to Somerset late in the evening. Friday was, for me, a very enjoyable day. I had not expected the Irish to vote "no" to the Lisbon treaty; that seemed too good to be true after every other democratic defence against a bad treaty had failed. Only last Wednesday, the House of Lords had voted down Britain's promised referendum by 280 votes to 218. I found myself voting for the referendum in the same lobby as Margaret Thatcher, just as I had when I voted for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. I thought it was shameful that the Labour and Lib Dem peers would not honour the manifesto commitments of the 2005 general election. But, then, I had thought it shameful when Tory peers tamely obeyed their whips and voted down a referendum for Maastricht.
Saturday was a perfect Somerset day; we sat in the garden from lunch to tea. Two of our grandchildren were staying with us and two more had come across in the morning. Our youngest daughter, Annunziata, who is the Conservative candidate for Somerton & Frome, went off to canvas in villages near Bruton, including Pitcombe, where our eldest daughter lives, and Shepton Montague, where a lot of our ancestors are buried. Annunziata was able to bring back to us a fresh and up-to-date report on public opinion in southeast Somerset.
As I expected, the Irish vote had been greeted with delight. Earlier in the year, we had a local referendum in Somerset & Frome on the Lisbon treaty. Eighty-seven per cent wanted a referendum on the treaty and 88 per cent stated that they would vote "no" if a referendum were given. The local MP, David Heath, resigned from the Lib Dem front bench in the Commons rather than follow Nick Clegg's three-line whip to abstain.
What I had not foreseen was the impact of the Davis resignation. Annunziata found that Lib Dem voters identified most strongly with the Davis campaign, to the point at which Mr Davis seemed to be validating the Conservatives as a party prepared to fight on liberal issues. There seems to have been a similar reaction among Labour rebels, some of whom say they will go up to Haltemprice and campaign for him. Pragmatists may have failed to recognise the impact of his personal declaration or the strength of public feeling on libertarian issues.
For the Libs Dems themselves, there is a snag in this, or perhaps two snags. The first, as Lady Williams immediately saw, is that Mr Davis is not campaigning on right-wing issues, but on traditional issues of personal liberty. The second snag is that Europe is itself a liberal issue, but one on which the Liberal Democrats as a party are on the anti-liberal side. If the Lib Dem peers had voted with the Conservatives in the Lords, the Lisbon Bill would have gone back to the Commons with a clause providing for a British referendum. We would not have had to leave our liberties for the Irish to protect.
The origin of the Lisbon treaty was the constitutional treaty, which was drafted by the European Constitutional Convention, which was controlled by Val‚ry Giscard d'Estaing as its chairman. In the Convention, the democratic deficit, which was supposed to be eliminated, was deepened and entrenched. The constitutional treaty was put to the vote in several European countries. Spain voted "yes", but France voted "no", as did the Netherlands. The European people do not want to transfer further powers away from their elected parliaments to the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.
The EU responded to the French and Dutch votes not by recognising the public concerns about liberty and democracy, but by trying to avoid any public votes in the future. In every country except Ireland, this policy of avoiding democracy was successful, though there are still a few to come. The avoidance of a referendum was even successful in Britain, where all the major parties had committed themselves to a vote. Only the Conservatives honoured their commitment.
What may happen next? There will be an attempt to rescue the substance of the Lisbon treaty in some form or through some subterfuge. Brussels, like the Clintons, is extremely reluctant to recognise defeat. The European politicians want their legal identity, their extended powers, their president, their foreign minister. They want the status of a national state. But referendums will go against them, as the referendum went against them in Ireland.
The Prime Minister has no feeling for these developments in public opinion. He is creating an ever larger surveillance state and accepts the European democratic deficit. There is now no national consensus to ratify the Lisbon treaty and it would be a grave blunder to do so.
Source
BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS CLASH OVER CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
The "apocalyptic visions" of environmentalists are not justified by the evidence about global warming, according to a Midland MP. John Maples (Con Stratford) told the House of Commons he did not believe scientists really understood what was happening to the earth's climate. He sounded a note of scepticism in a debate which highlighted the lack of consensus among Britain's politicians about the environment.
Black Country MP Rob Marris (Lab Wolverhampton South West) told colleagues to "wake up and smell the coffee" and accept the world was not going to stop creating the pollution believed to cause global warming. Most MPs and staff failed even to turn the lights off in the Commons toilets, he said. Britain should focus on how it was going to cope with global warming, instead of hoping it could avoid the problem by cutting back on carbon emissions, he said.
They were speaking during a debate on the Climate Change Bill, which will set a legally binding target for reducing UK carbon dioxide emissions by at least 26 per cent by 2020. Mr Maples said: "Until a couple of months ago, I was happily riding this consensus and accepted the received wisdom. I thought it was probably being exaggerated a bit, but then people usually do that. However, I then made the mistake of reading a few books and quite a lot of analysis ... that has led me to a couple of conclusions that trouble me a lot.
"I do not believe that the science is anything like as settled as the proponents of the Bill are making out. In fact, the scientists hedge their predictions with an awful lot of qualifications and maybes that those who invoke them often omit. "The science is a bit like medicine in the 1850s. The scientists are scratching the surface of something that they do not really understand, but no doubt will. "They are probably on to something, but nothing like the whole story. What they say does not justify any of the apocalyptic visions that we have heard set out."
He said none of the models scientists had developed to predict how carbon emissions might affect the environment could account for the climate change that had actually taken place. "The record shows that the climate warmed from 1920 to 1940, cooled from 1940 to 1975, rose again from 1975 to 2000, and since 2000 ... has not risen at all. In the past seven years, global temperatures have not increased."
Mr Marris was also sceptical about plans to reduce carbon emissions, but for different reasons. He said: "I welcome the Bill and I accept that human activity is affecting the climate adversely. I am not a flat-earther." But he did not accept the "cosy consensus" that everything would be fine if plans were made to cut carbon dioxide emissions, he said. Emissions were currently going up rather than down, he added.
Some MPs were calling for an 80 per cent cut, he said. "I say to honourable members, `wake up and smell the coffee'. We are not going to achieve 80 per cent - it will be hard to reach 60 per cent, if we consider the number of air trips our constituents make."
Global warming would affect Britain's plans, wildlife and food production, he said. "They will affect issues such as building design and planning regulations; roads and railways, with rails buckling in the heat; water supply, with a need for new reservoirs; what we have to do about coastal defences with rising sea levels; inland flooding, which we saw dramatically last year and which will only get worse; possible civil unrest and its security implications, which other countries and, potentially, we will face; and international development."
Source
NORTHERN IRELAND'S NEW ENVIRONMENT MINISTER IS AN OUTSPOKEN CLIMATE SCEPTIC
There has been a mixed reaction to East Antrim representative Sammy Wilson's appointment as Environment Minister, following a reshuffle of the DUP's Stormont team. Amid the back-slapping over the Assemblyman and MP's elevation to the Executive has come sharp criticism from leading environmentalists over the local politician's "sceptical" views on climate change.
Mr. Wilson, who replaces DUP colleague Arlene Foster in the post, said he was "very happy" to take on a job in which he could deal with issues affecting the people of East Antrim. He cited in particular the planning system which had caused "much frustration for many people". Mr. Wilson added: "I am also keen to ensure that we protect the beauty of Northern Ireland and keep it in its current state for future generations to enjoy. "There is also an important job be done with local government: I want to see efficient councils in Northern Ireland which provide good services and are accountable for what they do." ...
Mr. Wilson's promotion brought a less favourable response from other quarters. The Green Party expressed disappointment at Mr. Wilson's "climate change sceptic views" and urged him to refrain from commenting on the subject until he has acquainted himself with the findings of the Inter-governmental Panel on climate change.
Said Green Party MLA Brian Wilson: "Sammy Wilson has a duty to the people of Northern Ireland and the environment to ensure that his comments are evidence-based and not the uninformed babble of someone who should be spending more time reading his First Day briefs." He urged the East Antrim politician to attend UN talks on climate change, adding: "No serious scientist has attributed all climate change to human activity. "Even the school children of Northern Ireland understand the distinction."
Mr. Wilson's appointment also caused raised eyebrows within environmental group, Friends of the Earth. Describing the move as "a mistake," the organisation's Northern Ireland director, John Woods, commented: "Mr Wilson is well known for his sceptical views on climate change. "It is difficult to see how a Minister who holds such views in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence could be a credible protector of our environment. But the test will be how Sammy Wilson approaches his new responsibilities. "The jury is out on this appointment - he has a good deal to prove."
Responding to the criticism, the new Environment Minister said: "I am not convinced and I don't think that there is any firm evidence to show that all climate change is due to CO2 emissions. "I think we have to make sure we do not allow the agenda for NI to be dominated by the people who can sometimes be described as green fanatics."
More here
What schools need most is a motivated principal who is left alone by the bureaucrats
The item hardly made the morning news. [British] Government inspectors had discovered 14 "failed" schools that had suddenly become successes. Some bright spark thought it worth asking why. The answer came as a bolt of lightning: that all had benefited from something called leadership. It was the one common thread.
When stuck for an answer to a problem, I turn to the maxim known as Ockham's razor. It states: "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora," or do not apply many things to a task that can be done with few. It was brilliantly "razored" by the American marines to KISS, "keep it simple, stupid".
In modern state education, Ockham's razor is tantamount to knife crime. It lacks bureaucratic complexity. Its application demands no expertise, no grand staff, no research budget, no office blocks with atriums. Its mere mention endangers thousands of nonjobs, threatening to send former teachers now screwing up the school system back where they belong, in the schools.
Not a week passes without these people inventing for ministers a new and expensive quick fix for bad schools, an academy, a foundation, a trust, a "please look at me, I'm a minister" initiative. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these upheavals work, but each has its dedicated bureaucracy, its budget and its spin doctor.
Now along comes Ofsted, the schools inspectorate, and lets the cat out of the bag. If you want a good school, get the right head. Sack bad heads and appoint good ones. Give them the money and leave them alone. If they do not work, sack them again. Good heads are not made, except in the forge of experience. Mostly they are born.
In his charming novel Mister Pip, Lloyd Jones tells of an educated man living on a Polynesian island from which civil war has driven all public servants. The islanders plead with him to teach their children, for which he has no skills, books or equipment. All he has is an old copy of Great Expectations, which becomes his sole teaching aid. He requires nothing but his own personality, and that of Dickens.
The answers to most institutional problems are that simple. Ofsted approached 14 schools that were so dysfunctional as to be under "special measures". Each had shown dramatic improvement in 2003-7, in both exam performance and pupil behaviour. There had been a calculated programme of discipline, school uniform and subdivision into houses, and a promoting of school pride and identity.
While the report's jargon was close to gibberish, the message was clear: only a highly motivated staff would deliver "a whole-school identity and sense of belonging . . . an evident pride in recognising collective achievement". Then came the sting. The inspectors found that all depended on the courage, risk-taking and autonomy of one person, the head teacher, and on that person being left alone. Indeed, "outside help can actually make things worse . . . with a potential to create more problems and slow the pace of improvement". Local councils do best to disengage or, as the report put it, "manage robust exit strategies".
This finding echoes a 2006 report that found one in five English schools did not have a permanent head at all, and one in three vacancies had to be readvertised. The reason was that targetry and crushing paperwork had greatly reduced the appeal of running a modern state school and teachers were just not interested. The chief task of an English school head is to man the battlements to fight off marauding bands of ministers and officials. As one said to me: "They make the hoodies at the school gate look like a bunch of patsies."
Hansard reported that in one year under Labour the schools ministry sent out 3,840 pages of instructions to head teachers. Back in 2005 the "head teacher of the year" publicly attributed her success to "ignoring all government strategies". In March 2006 the chief examiner, Ken Boston, confessed that at British schools the "assessment load is huge . . . far greater than in other countries and not necessary for the purpose".
The centralisation of school administration has clearly not worked. The schools secretary, Ed Balls, admitted recently that we have "gone backwards" compared with the rest of Europe. He seemed bereft of any solution, other than yet more central initiatives.
Finding good leaders and then leaving them alone runs counter to Balls's entire outlook and Treasury upbringing. As he and his schools minister, Andrew Adonis, showed last week in yet another reorganisation of secondary education, their preferred route to improvement is through targets, regulations, inspections and the humiliating threat of closure. Balls publicly listed 638 schools on his hitlist, an act of mass demoralisation worthy of the Inquisition.
Towards the end of his career as a management pundit, the late C Northcote Parkinson retreated into what many saw as his least original phase. His famous "laws" had passed into the language, but none had had any effect. Paperwork still proliferated, work expanded to fill the time available and staff hired to do half-jobs still needed assistants. The one common trait that Parkinson could detect in all management success was that will-o'-the-wisp, leadership. An inspirational and determined leader defied his laws and moved bureaucratic mountains. Nothing else could do the trick. Parkinson's fans were contemptuous. How banal, they said. The genius had met old age.
The same response was given by the BBC to the Ofsted report on failing schools. Informed that the key lay in leadership, the interviewer remarked coldly: "But isn't that a statement of the blindingly obvious?" and turned to the next item. The BBC worships at the shrine of management consultancy and gorges on complexity. It cannot handle Ockham's razor. It loathes the simple answer.
Ofsted's discovery is of wider application than just to schools. As we watch the agony that Alan Johnson and his predecessors have inflicted on the National Health Service, we see the same syndrome. When anything is wrong with a hospital or health centre, the cure lies in reorganisation. There must, to use the prime minister's motto, be "solution through change". I think not. Public services are supplied by humans led by humans.
Whenever a hospital has in some sense failed, the cry is heard, "Bring back the matron", and some eager minister promises it. He then appoints 10 administrators over her head. These administrators have to be paid "incentive bonuses" just to do their jobs, defined as not to lead but to meet an external target. Nothing works.
We eulogise the simplistic managerial skills of an Alan Sugar, yet refuse to apply the lesson to the public sector. Top-down public administration in Britain is now obsessively complex. Last week it was announced that "popular schools will be allowed to take up to 26 extra pupils a year above their official limit, ministers propose". What on earth has such a detail to do with ministers? Such meddling reflects a lack of confidence in people to do good work. It ranks with the bonus fixation and targetry as a sure way of destroying professional self-esteem.
The cult of leadership was derided in the last century by the countervailing cult of management as shrouded in ugly connotations of superiority. The managerialists implied that running a human institution was a matter of technical skill, one that could be quantified, incentivised and taught. This appealed to the control tendencies of Whitehall. It reflected a lack of faith in the ability of democrats to hold institutions to account, be they schools, hospitals, care homes, police forces or even prisons - despite such accountability operating across the rest of Europe to general public satisfaction. Not a single cabinet minister to my knowledge has ever run an institution and thus known what it is like to deal with a cabinet minister on the rampage.
Leadership is notoriously indefinable and therefore hard to ordain from above. It lies in unexpected and untutored places, possessed for instance by Tony Blair but sadly not by Gordon Brown. It is unpredictable but essential to the running of institutions, often revealed only by trial and error. Ofsted has detected it in 14 lucky schools. Will the rest get the message?
Source
British PM comes through on Iran sanctions, Afghan troop increase: "There were questions surrounding Gordon Brown when he became Great Britain's Prime Minister. Taking office with echoes of "lap dog" following his predecessor Tony Blair, many wondered just how committed Brown would be to the "Special Relationship" between the US and Great Britain and whether he would initiate a more independent course in foreign affairs. Brown may yet eschew supporting the US on many issues. But on increasing sanctions on Iran and sending additional troops to Afghanistan - two things the US devoutly wished Brown would accede to - the British Prime Minister has come through."
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Socialists retreat: Patients on NHS to be freed to use top-up drugs
Patients who pay for "top-up" drugs will no longer be denied free NHS treatment, the Government will announce next week. In a major reversal of policy, the Department of Health will review the present rules, which ministers regard as unfair and a penalty for people fighting life-threatening illnesses such as cancer.
It will announce an end to the "co-payments" system, in which those who buy drugs that the NHS has deemed too expensive are made to pay for the rest of their care. The move comes after it was disclosed that a patient who paid for a drug to treat bowel cancer died after being denied free NHS treatment. Linda O'Boyle, 64, from Essex, was told that her decision meant she was considered a private patient.
Ministers have been defending the policy for months, claiming that to scrap it would lead to a "two-tier" NHS in which the wealthy have access to better health care. But in recent weeks they are understood to have been persuaded that the NHS already contains "top ups", particularly in dentistry and in some hospitals, where patients can pay for private rooms. They also believe that the change will apply to a very small number of patients each year.
The Government is also desperate to back a popular policy in the face of recent setbacks. The announcement on the changes is expected to be made on Wednesday.
Source
British State schools consider a return to the higher standards of the past
A new rival to the [middle school] GCSE exam designed along the lines of the traditional O-level may soon win backing from exam watchdogs and be taken up by hundreds of state schools.
Ofqual, the agency set up by the Government to regulate and accredit examinations, is studying plans for a new Cambridge International Certificate (CIC) which could be offered to high-performing pupils as an alternative to GCSEs. Pupils could start studying for the CIC, which would reduce coursework content and rely more heavily on end-of-course examinations, from September 2009, it was predicted yesterday.
Figures indicate that about 250 of the top fee-paying schools have dropped the GCSE. Martin Stephen, headmaster of St Paul's in London and a former chairman of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, which represents elite private schools including Eton and Winchester, has described the exam as "in crisis". Private schools have opted for the International GCSE - designed by Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), which is linked to the Oxford, Cambridge and Royal Society of Art exam board - for use overseas in countries wanting to retain an old-style O-level exam. But it cannot be used in state schools as it does not have national accreditation so ministers will not fund its use by any institution in the state sector.
Privately, CIE officials have been told they will never be given the green light for the International GCSE to be used in state schools, because it does not meet the published GCSE criteria to be based on the requirements of the national curriculum. However, the CIE was told that if it came up with another name which distinguished it from the GCSE, it could obtain accreditation, leading to ministers funding its use in the state sector. CIE said it had submitted "several syllabuses" to Ofqual.
A spokeswoman for Ofqual said that it would take at least two months for it to consider whether to approve the examination. If it did, ministers would then decide if state schools that wanted to use it would receive government funding.
Source
British health and safety zealots tell youngster her 2ft paddling pool needs a lifeguard
And they're not backing down
For nearly a quarter of a century, Lourdes Maxwell has celebrated the arrival of summer by putting a paddling pool in the garden. This year, however, her two grandchildren and the children of her neighbours may have to find another way to cool off in the heat. Miss Maxwell's local council has decided that the pool - which is only 2ft deep - needs a lifeguard. The 47-year-old divorced mother of three has also been told she must have insurance before she can inflate the toy outside her house in Portsmouth.
The health and safety edict came after she wrote to the city council asking for permission to put a bigger pool in the communal garden outside her home. Not only was she told it was too dangerous, but the council told her to empty the existing pool.
After her MP intervened, the local authority softened its stance, saying Miss Maxwell could have a pool if she paid for insurance and ensured supervisors were on constant watch. Residents near the communal gardens already have to obey a raft of rules governing their use. They are even supposed to ask the council for permission before having a barbecue.
Miss Maxwell, who is a full-time carer to her son Aiden, said yesterday: "It is absolutely pathetic. "I have had a paddling pool outside the front of my flat every summer for 24 years, ever since Aiden turned one year old. "Neighbours' children would come and enjoy the pool and I would give them ice lollies. It was always a very social occasion."
She added: "Now suddenly I'm not allowed. "I asked around for insurance and they just laughed at me. No one offers insurance for paddling pools. "I'm always there to supervise but they're trying to tell me I need lifeguards for a kiddies' pool as well - it's crazy."
Nigel Selley, Portsmouth Council's neighbourhood manager, defended the ruling yesterday. He said: "We did not have sufficient assurances that the risks associated with providing such a facility would be well-managed. "We have since spoken to Ms Maxwell and she is aware of our concerns for child safety and the risks associated with drowning." Steven Wylie, the councillor in charge of housing, added: "I want to encourage people to enjoy the communal gardens. "We want to help where we can to ensure that it is a fun and safe place for everyone to use."
Source
A queer "wedding" in Britain: "The Church of England has said two gay priests may have broken its rules, after a newspaper report that they exchanged vows and rings in Britain's first ever church "wedding" ceremony for a same-sex couple. The Sunday Telegraph said clerics Peter Cowell and David Lord married at one of England's oldest churches - Saint Bartholomew the Great in London - last month, using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites. The couple had registered their legal civil partnership status before the ceremony. The Church of England does not allow same-sex ceremonies in church, although some blessings have been carried out. A Church of England spokesman said they had "no reason" to believe that the ceremony did not take place but added: "What we seem to have here is a fairly serious breach of the rules by an individual or groups of individuals." News of the ceremony could not come at a worse time for the worldwide Anglican communion, which risks a damaging split because of member churches' diverging attitudes towards homosexuality, particularly amongst clergy."
500 clergy set to desert Church over 'betrayal' on women bishops: "More than 500 clergy could leave the Church of England in response to proposals to consecrate women bishops that will be debated at the General Synod next month. Bishops voted narrowly to approve the consecration of women, without enshrining the legal safeguards sought by traditionalists. Instead, dioceses that appoint a woman bishop will merely be asked to sign a voluntary code of practice to ensure that Anglo-Catholics who oppose the move are not discriminated against or forced to act against their conscience. The Times has learnt that some traditionalists are seeking legal advice on whether it will be possible to sue the Church for constructive dismissal under employment law, should the synod vote in favour of the plans. They are angry that they were promised safeguards when the synod voted to ordain women priests in 1992 and believe that they have been betrayed."
Patients who pay for "top-up" drugs will no longer be denied free NHS treatment, the Government will announce next week. In a major reversal of policy, the Department of Health will review the present rules, which ministers regard as unfair and a penalty for people fighting life-threatening illnesses such as cancer.
It will announce an end to the "co-payments" system, in which those who buy drugs that the NHS has deemed too expensive are made to pay for the rest of their care. The move comes after it was disclosed that a patient who paid for a drug to treat bowel cancer died after being denied free NHS treatment. Linda O'Boyle, 64, from Essex, was told that her decision meant she was considered a private patient.
Ministers have been defending the policy for months, claiming that to scrap it would lead to a "two-tier" NHS in which the wealthy have access to better health care. But in recent weeks they are understood to have been persuaded that the NHS already contains "top ups", particularly in dentistry and in some hospitals, where patients can pay for private rooms. They also believe that the change will apply to a very small number of patients each year.
The Government is also desperate to back a popular policy in the face of recent setbacks. The announcement on the changes is expected to be made on Wednesday.
Source
British State schools consider a return to the higher standards of the past
A new rival to the [middle school] GCSE exam designed along the lines of the traditional O-level may soon win backing from exam watchdogs and be taken up by hundreds of state schools.
Ofqual, the agency set up by the Government to regulate and accredit examinations, is studying plans for a new Cambridge International Certificate (CIC) which could be offered to high-performing pupils as an alternative to GCSEs. Pupils could start studying for the CIC, which would reduce coursework content and rely more heavily on end-of-course examinations, from September 2009, it was predicted yesterday.
Figures indicate that about 250 of the top fee-paying schools have dropped the GCSE. Martin Stephen, headmaster of St Paul's in London and a former chairman of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, which represents elite private schools including Eton and Winchester, has described the exam as "in crisis". Private schools have opted for the International GCSE - designed by Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), which is linked to the Oxford, Cambridge and Royal Society of Art exam board - for use overseas in countries wanting to retain an old-style O-level exam. But it cannot be used in state schools as it does not have national accreditation so ministers will not fund its use by any institution in the state sector.
Privately, CIE officials have been told they will never be given the green light for the International GCSE to be used in state schools, because it does not meet the published GCSE criteria to be based on the requirements of the national curriculum. However, the CIE was told that if it came up with another name which distinguished it from the GCSE, it could obtain accreditation, leading to ministers funding its use in the state sector. CIE said it had submitted "several syllabuses" to Ofqual.
A spokeswoman for Ofqual said that it would take at least two months for it to consider whether to approve the examination. If it did, ministers would then decide if state schools that wanted to use it would receive government funding.
Source
British health and safety zealots tell youngster her 2ft paddling pool needs a lifeguard
And they're not backing down
For nearly a quarter of a century, Lourdes Maxwell has celebrated the arrival of summer by putting a paddling pool in the garden. This year, however, her two grandchildren and the children of her neighbours may have to find another way to cool off in the heat. Miss Maxwell's local council has decided that the pool - which is only 2ft deep - needs a lifeguard. The 47-year-old divorced mother of three has also been told she must have insurance before she can inflate the toy outside her house in Portsmouth.
The health and safety edict came after she wrote to the city council asking for permission to put a bigger pool in the communal garden outside her home. Not only was she told it was too dangerous, but the council told her to empty the existing pool.
After her MP intervened, the local authority softened its stance, saying Miss Maxwell could have a pool if she paid for insurance and ensured supervisors were on constant watch. Residents near the communal gardens already have to obey a raft of rules governing their use. They are even supposed to ask the council for permission before having a barbecue.
Miss Maxwell, who is a full-time carer to her son Aiden, said yesterday: "It is absolutely pathetic. "I have had a paddling pool outside the front of my flat every summer for 24 years, ever since Aiden turned one year old. "Neighbours' children would come and enjoy the pool and I would give them ice lollies. It was always a very social occasion."
She added: "Now suddenly I'm not allowed. "I asked around for insurance and they just laughed at me. No one offers insurance for paddling pools. "I'm always there to supervise but they're trying to tell me I need lifeguards for a kiddies' pool as well - it's crazy."
Nigel Selley, Portsmouth Council's neighbourhood manager, defended the ruling yesterday. He said: "We did not have sufficient assurances that the risks associated with providing such a facility would be well-managed. "We have since spoken to Ms Maxwell and she is aware of our concerns for child safety and the risks associated with drowning." Steven Wylie, the councillor in charge of housing, added: "I want to encourage people to enjoy the communal gardens. "We want to help where we can to ensure that it is a fun and safe place for everyone to use."
Source
A queer "wedding" in Britain: "The Church of England has said two gay priests may have broken its rules, after a newspaper report that they exchanged vows and rings in Britain's first ever church "wedding" ceremony for a same-sex couple. The Sunday Telegraph said clerics Peter Cowell and David Lord married at one of England's oldest churches - Saint Bartholomew the Great in London - last month, using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites. The couple had registered their legal civil partnership status before the ceremony. The Church of England does not allow same-sex ceremonies in church, although some blessings have been carried out. A Church of England spokesman said they had "no reason" to believe that the ceremony did not take place but added: "What we seem to have here is a fairly serious breach of the rules by an individual or groups of individuals." News of the ceremony could not come at a worse time for the worldwide Anglican communion, which risks a damaging split because of member churches' diverging attitudes towards homosexuality, particularly amongst clergy."
500 clergy set to desert Church over 'betrayal' on women bishops: "More than 500 clergy could leave the Church of England in response to proposals to consecrate women bishops that will be debated at the General Synod next month. Bishops voted narrowly to approve the consecration of women, without enshrining the legal safeguards sought by traditionalists. Instead, dioceses that appoint a woman bishop will merely be asked to sign a voluntary code of practice to ensure that Anglo-Catholics who oppose the move are not discriminated against or forced to act against their conscience. The Times has learnt that some traditionalists are seeking legal advice on whether it will be possible to sue the Church for constructive dismissal under employment law, should the synod vote in favour of the plans. They are angry that they were promised safeguards when the synod voted to ordain women priests in 1992 and believe that they have been betrayed."
Monday, June 16, 2008
NHS drugs cheaper but much less effective
The National Health Service is providing dying cancer patients with drugs that are five times less effective than those available privately and is refusing to treat them if they try to buy medicines themselves. One drug for kidney cancer, routinely available through public health systems in most European countries but not to British patients, can reduce the size of tumours in 31% of patients, compared with just 6% of those prescribed the standard NHS drug.
The growing row over “co-payments” has prompted the government to reconsider the ban. Alan Johnson, the health secretary, has promised a “fundamental rethink” of the policy. The shift comes as increasing numbers of cancer doctors defy the official Whitehall ban and allow patients to pay for drugs while still receiving NHS care. Doctors at the Royal Marsden hospital in London and consultants at the NHS trust in Swansea are offering patients NHS care while they pay to receive drugs that will prolong their lives. Last week The Sunday Times revealed that about 16 consultants in Birmingham are ignoring the government guidance.
Research presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology found that kidney patients taking the new drug Sutent lived six months longer than those prescribed alpha interferon, the NHS treatment.
The failure of the NHS to make more effective drugs available to cancer patients has been condemned as “unethical” by leading doctors. John Wagstaff, professor of oncology at Swansea University, said: “This has created a very difficult situation for us. Having seen the latest data, I believe it is now pretty unethical to give many patients alpha interferon [rather than Sutent]. We are often forced to prescribe interferon because we do not have access to Sutent [on the NHS], but I am always upfront with the patients. I tell them what I think the most effective treatment is.”
Eight times as many patients in Germany and France receive Sutent as in Britain, according to figures held by Pfizer, the manufacturer. Sutent, which costs about 2,200 pounds a month compared with about 800 for the NHS drug, is one of a number of life-prolonging new drugs at the centre of the co-payments row.
In advanced kidney cancer, when the patient cannot be treated with any other drug, Nexavar, another medicine, can double the period when the disease is held under control. A trial of Nexavar, comparing the effect of the drug with a placebo, showed it to be so effective that the trial had to be halted early as it was considered unethical not to give it to all the patients in the test. Tumours were prevented from growing for an average of 5.5 months in patients taking Nexavar, against 2.8 months in those taking the placebo. Despite the findings, Nexavar is not routinely funded by the NHS.
Similarly, bowel cancer patients are up to four times as likely to see their tumour shrink if they pay for Erbitux than if they take irinotecan, the NHS-approved drug, alone. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 showed that 23% of patients experienced a reduction in the size of their tumour when they took Erbitux and irinotecan. Other studies showed that just 5% of patients have the same benefit from taking irinotecan alone. Those taking irinotecan alone had their bowel cancer under control for 4.2 months, but this rose to 8.6 months when Erbitux was added. Erbitux, costing about 3,000 pounds a month, is funded for bowel cancer in most European countries. Patients in France are 13 times, in Spain 10 times and in Germany nine times more likely to get the drug than Britons.
The drug Avastin offers similar benefits. Research presented earlier this year showed that patients who receive Avastin and routine chemotherapy before surgery are twice as likely to be alive two years later as those who receive only the chemotherapy available on the NHS.
Source
Classroom focus on expressing emotion 'leaves pupils unable to cope'
Schools and universities are producing a generation of "can't do" students, who are encouraged to talk about their emotions at the expense of exploring ideas or acquiring knowledge, academics claimed yesterday. The strong focus on emotional expression and building up self-esteem in schools and colleges was "infantilising" students, leaving them unable to cope with life on their own, according to the authors of a new book, The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education.
Dennis Hayes and Kathryn Ecclestone, of Oxford Brookes University, argue that this "therapeutic" approach to education is at odds with the acquisition of knowledge because it views the emotional skills associated with learning as more important than subject content or criticism. "Turning teaching into therapy is destroying the minds of children, young people and adults," Dr Hayes told Times Higher Education. "Therapeutic education promotes the idea that we are emotional, vulnerable and hapless individuals. It is an attack on human potential."
They pointed to the increased presence of parents on campus, and substitute parents, such as counsellors and support officers. "Everyone looks for a difficulty to declare, like the hundreds of students who register themselves as dyslexic. Being dyslexic used to be something that people hid. Now students wear their difficulties as a badge of honour," Dr Hayes said.
Therapeutic education pervaded all levels of education. Dr Hayes cited the case of a primary school boy who was asked by an emotional learning assistant why he was so happy. When he said he was looking forward to a treat at McDonald's, she asked: "Are you sure there is nothing worrying you?"
The book follows the recent introduction into state schools of lessons in happiness and wellbeing under a programme known as Seal (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning). Ministers are convinced that teaching children to express their emotions boosts concentration and motivation. But there is growing disquiet that this attitude could undermine teaching and learning.
Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, said: "It inflates the importance of feelings to the point where they eclipse what is supposed to be going on in the classroom." It also made teachers and lecturers overcautious. "They will give a piece of work 55 per cent and then write on it 'this essay is superb' because they daren't say it's crap."
John Foreman, dean of students at University College London, agreed that students were not as "self-sustaining and robust" as they once were. He partly blamed overprotective parents. "If young people don't start learning to solve their own problems, when will they ever?" he said.
Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College in Berkshire, a pioneer of wellbeing classes, defended the approach. "Since we started wellbeing lessons [in 2005] our A-level results have gone up from 64 to 86 per cent of students getting As and Bs."
Source
The Brits lose ANOTHER lot of secret files: "Secret British government documents detailing the fight against terrorist financing have been found on a train, a newspaper has reported, the second time in a week that top-secret files have been mislaid. The Independent on Sunday said the papers divulged Britain's policy on fighting global terrorist financing, drugs trafficking and money laundering, and analysed how Iran could contravene international financial rules to finance weapons. The newspaper did not reveal any details in the documents and said it had handed them back to authorities. "The confidential files outline how the trade and banking systems can be manipulated to finance illicit weapons of mass destruction in Iran," the paper reported, adding that the documents discussed countries signed up to the global Financial Action Task Force."
The National Health Service is providing dying cancer patients with drugs that are five times less effective than those available privately and is refusing to treat them if they try to buy medicines themselves. One drug for kidney cancer, routinely available through public health systems in most European countries but not to British patients, can reduce the size of tumours in 31% of patients, compared with just 6% of those prescribed the standard NHS drug.
The growing row over “co-payments” has prompted the government to reconsider the ban. Alan Johnson, the health secretary, has promised a “fundamental rethink” of the policy. The shift comes as increasing numbers of cancer doctors defy the official Whitehall ban and allow patients to pay for drugs while still receiving NHS care. Doctors at the Royal Marsden hospital in London and consultants at the NHS trust in Swansea are offering patients NHS care while they pay to receive drugs that will prolong their lives. Last week The Sunday Times revealed that about 16 consultants in Birmingham are ignoring the government guidance.
Research presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology found that kidney patients taking the new drug Sutent lived six months longer than those prescribed alpha interferon, the NHS treatment.
The failure of the NHS to make more effective drugs available to cancer patients has been condemned as “unethical” by leading doctors. John Wagstaff, professor of oncology at Swansea University, said: “This has created a very difficult situation for us. Having seen the latest data, I believe it is now pretty unethical to give many patients alpha interferon [rather than Sutent]. We are often forced to prescribe interferon because we do not have access to Sutent [on the NHS], but I am always upfront with the patients. I tell them what I think the most effective treatment is.”
Eight times as many patients in Germany and France receive Sutent as in Britain, according to figures held by Pfizer, the manufacturer. Sutent, which costs about 2,200 pounds a month compared with about 800 for the NHS drug, is one of a number of life-prolonging new drugs at the centre of the co-payments row.
In advanced kidney cancer, when the patient cannot be treated with any other drug, Nexavar, another medicine, can double the period when the disease is held under control. A trial of Nexavar, comparing the effect of the drug with a placebo, showed it to be so effective that the trial had to be halted early as it was considered unethical not to give it to all the patients in the test. Tumours were prevented from growing for an average of 5.5 months in patients taking Nexavar, against 2.8 months in those taking the placebo. Despite the findings, Nexavar is not routinely funded by the NHS.
Similarly, bowel cancer patients are up to four times as likely to see their tumour shrink if they pay for Erbitux than if they take irinotecan, the NHS-approved drug, alone. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 showed that 23% of patients experienced a reduction in the size of their tumour when they took Erbitux and irinotecan. Other studies showed that just 5% of patients have the same benefit from taking irinotecan alone. Those taking irinotecan alone had their bowel cancer under control for 4.2 months, but this rose to 8.6 months when Erbitux was added. Erbitux, costing about 3,000 pounds a month, is funded for bowel cancer in most European countries. Patients in France are 13 times, in Spain 10 times and in Germany nine times more likely to get the drug than Britons.
The drug Avastin offers similar benefits. Research presented earlier this year showed that patients who receive Avastin and routine chemotherapy before surgery are twice as likely to be alive two years later as those who receive only the chemotherapy available on the NHS.
Source
Classroom focus on expressing emotion 'leaves pupils unable to cope'
Schools and universities are producing a generation of "can't do" students, who are encouraged to talk about their emotions at the expense of exploring ideas or acquiring knowledge, academics claimed yesterday. The strong focus on emotional expression and building up self-esteem in schools and colleges was "infantilising" students, leaving them unable to cope with life on their own, according to the authors of a new book, The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education.
Dennis Hayes and Kathryn Ecclestone, of Oxford Brookes University, argue that this "therapeutic" approach to education is at odds with the acquisition of knowledge because it views the emotional skills associated with learning as more important than subject content or criticism. "Turning teaching into therapy is destroying the minds of children, young people and adults," Dr Hayes told Times Higher Education. "Therapeutic education promotes the idea that we are emotional, vulnerable and hapless individuals. It is an attack on human potential."
They pointed to the increased presence of parents on campus, and substitute parents, such as counsellors and support officers. "Everyone looks for a difficulty to declare, like the hundreds of students who register themselves as dyslexic. Being dyslexic used to be something that people hid. Now students wear their difficulties as a badge of honour," Dr Hayes said.
Therapeutic education pervaded all levels of education. Dr Hayes cited the case of a primary school boy who was asked by an emotional learning assistant why he was so happy. When he said he was looking forward to a treat at McDonald's, she asked: "Are you sure there is nothing worrying you?"
The book follows the recent introduction into state schools of lessons in happiness and wellbeing under a programme known as Seal (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning). Ministers are convinced that teaching children to express their emotions boosts concentration and motivation. But there is growing disquiet that this attitude could undermine teaching and learning.
Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, said: "It inflates the importance of feelings to the point where they eclipse what is supposed to be going on in the classroom." It also made teachers and lecturers overcautious. "They will give a piece of work 55 per cent and then write on it 'this essay is superb' because they daren't say it's crap."
John Foreman, dean of students at University College London, agreed that students were not as "self-sustaining and robust" as they once were. He partly blamed overprotective parents. "If young people don't start learning to solve their own problems, when will they ever?" he said.
Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College in Berkshire, a pioneer of wellbeing classes, defended the approach. "Since we started wellbeing lessons [in 2005] our A-level results have gone up from 64 to 86 per cent of students getting As and Bs."
Source
The Brits lose ANOTHER lot of secret files: "Secret British government documents detailing the fight against terrorist financing have been found on a train, a newspaper has reported, the second time in a week that top-secret files have been mislaid. The Independent on Sunday said the papers divulged Britain's policy on fighting global terrorist financing, drugs trafficking and money laundering, and analysed how Iran could contravene international financial rules to finance weapons. The newspaper did not reveal any details in the documents and said it had handed them back to authorities. "The confidential files outline how the trade and banking systems can be manipulated to finance illicit weapons of mass destruction in Iran," the paper reported, adding that the documents discussed countries signed up to the global Financial Action Task Force."
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Heart attack admissions fall by up to 40% since smoking ban
I thought the headline above was too good to be true. It is. See, for instance, the bit I have highlighted. Reading the small print is important in health matters too. The honest headline would be: "Smoking ban makes no difference"
The number of heart attack patients being admitted to emergency wards has fallen sharply in more than half of England's hospital trusts since smoking was banned in public places. The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, are an early indication of the impact of the smoking ban on heart disease rates in England. Some hospitals have seen the number of cases fall by 41 per cent since last July. The British Heart Foundation said that it showed the ban was the "most significant public health initiative this century".
Studies in Scotland and Ireland, which introduced a public-smoking ban in 2006, showed hospital admissions for heart attacks falling by 17 and 14 per cent respectively. Comparable evidence has come from France and Italy. These drops in the rate of heart attacks have been attributed to a large number of people stopping smoking, and far fewer people being exposed to airborne toxins through passive smoking.
The Government has not yet published figures documenting the effects of the ban in England. But NHS records show that there were 1,384 fewer heart attacks in the nine months after the legislation was introduced than in the same period a year earlier. The figures, obtained by the Daily Mail, show admissions for heart attacks from 114 trusts: 66 saw a drop in admissions compared with the same period the year before. The most striking figures came from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, where there was a 41 per cent fall, or 418 fewer cases. In the remaining 48 trusts, the number of admissions remained the same or increased slightly.
The Department of Health welcomed the figures as "good news" but added that it was too early to attribute falls in heart attack rates to the new legislation. Rates of heart disease were falling before smoking in public was banned in European countries, and various factors, including mild weather, can contribute to a fall. Nevertheless, the health benefits of stopping smoking are well established. A year after a person quits smoking, the risk of a heart attack falls to half that of a smoker.
Nicholas Boon, of the British Cardiovascular Society, said: "When you place these figures with the research in Scotland, Ireland, France and Rome, it is consistent with the observation that the ban has been followed by improvements in heart attack rates."
Source
Britain's socialists have INCREASED inequality
Attacking a major route to advancement -- the selective ("Grammar") schools did not help
Who would have thought that 11 years of a Labour government would make Britain more unequal? Yesterday's official statistics show that since 1997, the poor have - in relative terms - got poorer and the rich richer. Inequality in Britain is now at its highest level since it was first measured in 1961. And that is bound to put a dampener on Gordon Brown's attempts to make our society more mobile.
For the more unequal a nation is, the less social mobility it offers. David Cameron likes to claim that Britain is now a genuine meritocracy in which where we are going is more important than where we have come from. But that's simply not true if you look at the underlying figures. Our society is no more fluid now than it was a generation ago - and it is less fluid than it was a generation before that.
They buck you up, your mum and dad, or they muck you up. Either way, in modern Britain, what most determines where you will end up in life is your parents. If they are high-earning, ambitious professionals, the chances are you will be too. If they are poor and unemployed, you have only a small chance of improving your prospects, whatever the talents you were born with.
Britain - along with America - is one of the most socially rigid nations in the developed world. And that is not because it is uniquely difficult for a poor child to do well here. It is because there is so little downward mobility from the top. If your parents are in the top three social classes (out of the seven defined by sociologists), there is a 74 per cent chance that you will be too. It is only the fact that the middle classes have expanded, thanks to the economy generating more white-collar jobs, that some children born into the working class have been able to move up and join them.
Well-off children have an enormous head start in Britain, and the influences work on them long before they even begin school. The brightest poor children drop from the 88th percentile at the age of 3 (meaning that only 12 per cent of their contemporaries score more highly in tests) to the 65th by the age of 5. The least able rich children, meanwhile, move up from the 15th percentile at 3 to the 45th at 5. At that rate, the dim rich kids overtake the bright poor ones in test scores by the time they are just 7.
So it is not just innate ability that determines your fate. While it may - perhaps - be true that, on average, children of parents in intellectually demanding jobs have a higher IQ than those whose parents are poor and unemployed (as Bruce Charlton argued controversially in Times Higher Education), that could not on its own explain the fact that rich youngsters are more than four times more likely than poor ones to go to university.
Nurture seems to matter at least as much as nature. Children of poor parents here don't tend to be given the same intellectual stimulation or the same impetus to achieve. In a survey of 54 developed countries, England and Scotland showed the highest correlation between children's test scores and the number of books at home. Poor children are less likely to be read to, less likely to be taken to museums or the theatre and less likely to display the good behaviour and social skills that are also associated with success in later life.
They are also more likely to have parents who don't particularly value education. Attitudes to education are incredibly important - which is why disadvantaged Indian and Chinese pupils do much better at school than their white or Afro-Caribbean contemporaries from similar backgrounds.
Why are Britain and America (supposedly the land of opportunity) less mobile than other countries? Economists put it down to our high levels of inequality. The more unequal a society, the harder it is to move out of your social class. The distances are greater, for a start. It is no accident that the most socially mobile nations are Scandinavian.
How depressing, though, for Labour ministers that so much has been done to try to increase social mobility here to so little effect. There has been a huge redistribution of money from the middle classes to the poor. There has been extra investment in inner-city schools. And there has been the introduction of SureStart, a scheme aimed at improving the life chances of children from an early age. Yet all Labour has managed to do is stabilise the decline in mobility.
The trouble is that the countervailing forces have been so strong. The more that we move to a knowledge economy, the more employers value educational succ-ess. Jobs that used to be open to non-graduates now expect a degree, and junior employees without one can no longer hope to be promoted into them. Britain and the US have higher returns to education than most other countries, meaning that graduates can expect to earn far more than those who have not been to university.
This is something that middle-class parents understand, and all their efforts are devoted to ensuring that their children go to university - preferably one of the best ones - and end up in a good, graduate-only job. To this end, they work single-mindedly to find a place for their offspring in the best nursery school, the best primary and the best secondary. If they can't afford to go private, they may employ a tutor to top up at home what their children are taught at school. High educational achievement, for girls as well as boys, has become even more of a spur in middle-class families than it was a generation or two ago.
It is hard for poor parents to compete with these dedicated rivals. The working classes on the whole have a smaller (though often closer) network of friends. The middle classes tend to have a wider (if shallower) circle of acquaintances from whom they can get the best advice on schools, universities and jobs, and with whom they can place their children on work experience. They can afford to buy houses in better catchment areas. They have broadband internet access at home, shelves of books and quiet places for their children to study. They can even "help" with coursework.
Then there is what economists call "assortative mating". We tend to marry others from the same social class. When girls were not so well educated and mothers stayed at home, this made less difference. Now that high-achieving, high-earning men marry high-achieving, high-earning women who often carry on at work after they have children, the advantages for their offspring are greater still - and so is the polarisation of society.
And finally, of course, there is the question of private schools. Yes, state schools have improved in the past ten years. It would be a scandal if they hadn't, given the amount of money that has been poured into them. But private schools have improved at least as fast. They have upped their fees, allowing them to recruit better teachers and build more facilities. The best ones have become far more academically selective - witness the wails of Old Etonians who can no longer get their sons into the school.
We all know the odd privately educated person who ends up as a poverty-stricken failure. But that sort of downward mobility is almost perversely difficult to achieve in Britain. Private schools give children the social skills, the networks and the academic results that pretty much guarantee them the same status that their parents have enjoyed. In many private schools these days, every sixth-former goes on to higher education. After that start in life, it is pretty unlikely that they will be stacking supermarket shelves. As the Sutton Trust has shown, privately educated people still take a disproportionate share of Britain's top jobs.
There is nothing wrong with middle-class parents wanting the best for their children and going all out to achieve it. The left-wing response, led by Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has been to penalise these parents by introducing school lotteries and banning selection by interview. Rather than dragging them down, though, would it not be better to try to equalise the chances of less privileged children?
IntoUniversity, a charity with three centres in inner-city London, is trying to do just that. It offers disadvantaged youngsters the sort of opportunities and expectations that middle-class children take for granted. From the age of 7, it not only hosts after-school study sessions with tutors, books and computers, it also introduces the idea of university and professional careers to children who might never have contemplated them. They get taken to museums and theatres, take part in debates, do workshops with bankers and lawyers and journalists, and spend a week hosted by a university discovering how learning can be enjoyable.
Many are then paired with a mentor who is already an undergraduate, often from a similar background, who not only helps them study, but also makes university seem as normal an aspiration as it would be for a middle-class child. And the charity also gives help and guidance that their parents can't always offer: on GCSE and A-Level choices, filling in a UCAS form, choosing a course and a college.
It is startlingly successful and has so far sent more than 80 students to university. Ayisha Adedeji, now 19, started with IntoUniversity at primary school. She won straight As in her A Levels and is now studying law and sociology at Warwick. She remembers being taken on a trip to Belgium, ostensibly to learn about the Second World War, but also to help her and her fellow pupils raise their ambitions. "We stuck stickers on ourselves saying `I want to be a doctor' or `I want to be a lawyer'. IntoUniversity gave me that extra push."
Andrew Chaplin, a teacher at Walnut Tree Walk Primary School in inner-city Lambeth, recently took his whole Year 6 class to a week run by IntoUniversity. "Every child in the class now talks about going to university and what course they would like to do," he says. "It is something many of them would never have even considered before."
So these are the keys: early intervention to stop bright children tailing off before they reach school; high expectations from teachers to keep them on track when they get there; and initiatives such as IntoUniversity to replicate the home environment that middle-class children enjoy.
These things can work wonders. The introduction of really good universal childcare in Denmark in the 1970s doubled the odds of children with ill-educated parents completing the equivalent of A Levels. And a US programme, aimed at disadvantaged mothers while they are still pregnant and sends a nurse to visit them for the first two years of their child's life, has been shown to give the child a larger vocabulary and a higher IQ. A similar scheme is being piloted here.
Gordon Brown and David Cameron can argue over whether the State or the voluntary sector should be helping poor children to aim high. But they both want to extend opportunity more widely. And they must agree that - while they can't buy an Eton education for everyone - the great start in life that they enjoyed as children is a boon that is still spread far too unevenly in Britain.
Source
Upscale Brits moving out
Even Bulgaria seems preferable to some Brits
As the economic mood darkens, Britain's wealth generators are moving abroad. So where exactly is everybody heading? The exodus is accelerating faster than house prices are falling. Refusing to risk their livelihoods on our spluttering financial situation, or have their spirits crushed by fear of rising crime, a new swath of high-flyers, executives and entrepreneurs are departing Britain for fresher, brighter economies. Think Brazil, China, Morocco, even Bulgaria and Albania.
Up to one million more Britons are predicted to join the five million expatriates currently abroad over the next five years. But evidence suggests that, driven by the economic gloom, availability of property and the ease of working abroad via the internet, the departure rate will increase still further. Almost two million have moved away in the past decade, according to figures released last month, with 200,000 quitting our shores in 2006, the last year for which official statistics are available.
The figures make for happy reading for some. ''Our turnover has increased by more than 70 per cent," says former immigration officer Liam Clifford, who now runs Global Visas, which helps people negotiate the tortuous process of getting clearance to work abroad. "We are swamped. People are disillusioned with Britain, and the tax system is punishing working people. About half of those going are entrepreneurial, types - what you might call aspirational non-doms. The people with get-up-and-go are getting up and going."
Among them is Michael Loughlin, 39, whose company, Eurologix, based in Staffordshire, makes X-ray scanners for airports and prisons. He is moving his family and his company's manufacturing operations to Toronto, from where he will export back to Britain. ''The Canadian government is biting my arm off to get me there, offering financial incentives and introducing me to potential customers, but no one here cares. We don't support entrepreneurship any more."
Although the predicted exodus of hundreds of affluent non-doms from Britain has, to some extent, been averted by Government concessions, many other wealthy individuals are leaving, says Andrew Langton, chairman of international estate agents Aylesford International, which has offices in Spain and France. Forty per cent of his company's business is now in overseas property. ''Brits are saying enough is enough and are quitting the nanny state. Those who are successful are asking, why stick around here and lose everything to inheritance tax?"
Experts say the wealthy are moving themselves and their money to Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong - which, despite Chinese control, remains a temple to capitalism and offers the privacy in banking and tax affairs that are under fire in traditional havens such as Monaco. Closer to home, even the previously unsympathetic tax regimes of Spain and France have become more welcoming in comparison with Britain.
Figures from overseas property advice site BuyAssociation.co.uk support the trend towards an exodus of the more affluent: the number of inquiries from those planning to emigrate has risen seven per cent over the past year. A shift upwards to properties costing between œ100,000 and œ300,000 suggests that home owners are capitalising on their UK properties before prices slump even more. Paul Collins, the website's property editor, adds that inquiries about properties in excess of œ1 million have increased fourfold in the past year.
At the same time, people are becoming more adventurous about their destinations. ''We have recently introduced new online guides to buying property and living in Albania, India and Malaysia because of growing demand. And Morocco is attracting a lot of interest because it's a big country, with a good government, and there is a lot of development. It's only another 30 minutes' flying time from the Costa del Sol."
China, too, is attracting Brits because it is seen as a land of opportunity in the way that Russia was in the mid-1990s, but without the corruption and mafia. The Communist government is desperate to open up markets further to Western interests - the Olympics offers an ideal opportunity that they are exploiting to the max. Many rich people are also attracted to Hong Kong.
According to Paul Collins, it's the prospect of economic hardship on the horizon here that ''crystallises thinking among people, prompting them to make decisions about their future that they have been considering for some time". This was precisely the case with Barry and Barbara Mardell, who lived outside Bognor Regis in East Sussex, and who moved to Cyprus in April. Aged 56 and 52 respectively, they are some way off retiring, but sought a better lifestyle when forced to rely upon one salary after Mrs Mardell, a former executive with Qinetiq, the defence contractor, had to give up work on health grounds. '
'The quality of life in Britain is not what it was," says Mrs Mardell. ''Our village was no longer a real village because of over-development; we suffered every time the Government changed taxes to penalise middle- class, middle-income people and our children couldn't find work because the immigrants took all the jobs." Now settled in Cyprus, her husband is starting his own facilities management company and they are shortly about to move into a three-bedroom detached house with swimming pool.
Even Bulgaria is seen to offer more opportunities for a better life than Britain, says David Hollands, who set up PropertyBulgaria.com after realising that its low cost of living and competitively priced properties - a tenth of what they might cost in Tuscany or the Dordogne - would be attractive to disenchanted Brits. ''We are getting up to half a dozen inquiries a week from people who are going, or want to go in the immediate future," he says. ''People are fed with all the CCTV cameras, having all this global warming stuff rammed down their throats and not having anywhere to park the car."
One of those who have taken the plunge is Martin MacMaster, 40, who runs an agricultural contractors in Bedfordshire and will soon be moving most of his business to Bulgaria. "I'm fed up with the rising cost of everything, including diesel fuel. I've given up banging my head against a brick wall. The quality of life in this country has dropped by 50 per cent over the past five years. It's not a political thing," he adds. ''I didn't vote for any of them."
He is one of a number of potential wealth generators of the future who are now lost to Britain. Simon Greenwood, 27, and his partner Charlotte Senior, 28, both left behind the prospect of good careers in London for a fresh start in undeveloped Puglia, southern Italy. ''We were fed up with commuting and the rat race. When we come back now, London seems so crowded, polluted and dirty." In the three years since they left, Ms Senior has written a novel and they have started a company that helps others relocate to the area.
Next year, Damon Kestle, 40, and his wife, Sarah, who is expecting their first child, plan to move to Brazil to start a restaurant in a new luxury housing complex in the north-east of the country. Mr Kestle, who runs a gastro-pub in north London, says: "Making money is not the only reason for going there, but I think we can expect a better standard of living. The economy is growing and I think in five years' time it will become the place to be. We come from Nottingham, which has a very high crime rate, and we are living in north London, which is full of knife crime, so I think Brazil is actually a better place to bring up a child." Whether it is Brazil, Italy or Bulgaria, he speaks for many when he says of his new chosen home: "It is where we see our future."
Source
NHS reforms deliver no significant patient benefit
Rhetoric not matched by results
Almost 1 billion pounds spent increasing choice and competition in the health service has not delivered any significant benefits for patients, an official report published today says. Changes intended to introduce "market style" reforms in the NHS have delivered some improvements, the Audit Commission and Healthcare Commission concluded. But there was still "some way to go before patients see any significant benefits", said Ian Kennedy, the chairman of the Healthcare Commission, who co-authored the report. Around half of patients are still not being offered a choice about where they would like to be treated, the report found
The changes have also failed to increase the number of patients being treated outside hospital, one of the key aims of the reforms. Although there have been "significant improvements" in some areas, the report concluded that progress was "behind" what it might have been.
The reforms, brought in at different points since 2000, include allowing patients more choice about which hospital they visit, increased use of the private sector and paying hospitals a set rate for each procedure, encouraging them to treat more patients more efficiently. But they were introduced with no clear "vision", the report found, and no system was set up to monitor or evaluate if they were working.
In 2006 ministers announced that patients would be allowed to choose between a limited number of hospitals for their care, a policy extended to all hospitals earlier this year. However, the report found that only 50 per cent of patients were being offered any choice at all, well short of the government's target of 80 per cent. The health service also does not collect enough information to allow patients a true choice, the report found. Most patients want details on the quality of care provided by different hospitals but that data is not being collected by the Department of Health.
The report also shows that outpatient appointment numbers remained generally static across the country, despite a stated aim to treat more people in the community instead of in hospital. And only 16 per cent of GPs believe that a new system which gives them more control over money spent by their surgery had actually helped patients.
However, the report's authors said that the reforms could deliver benefit to patients in the future. "Conceptually the measures should work and we should look to the start of improvement. In the next couple of years we will know whether the idea was correct," Michael O'Higgins, chairman of the Audit Commission, who co-authored the document, said.
The Tories accused ministers of missing "a golden opportunity" to make a real difference to standards in the NHS. Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: "They have spent a lot but achieved far too little. "The Government has said many of the right things about reforming the NHS but when it comes to actually delivering them, it has dithered and delayed. Giving GPs responsibility for budgets for their patients should have been one of the strongest drivers of change but Labour hasn't implemented it. "Too much money that could have been spent on improving care for patients has been wasted."
Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: "This is a depressing verdict on 11 years of endless, contradictory reform in the NHS which have cost taxpayers a lot of money and delivered little benefit to patient care. "Choice in the NHS must be made to work for everyone. Without information and support for all patients, choice will succeed in only improving care for the well informed - leaving more disadvantaged groups behind."
Source
I thought the headline above was too good to be true. It is. See, for instance, the bit I have highlighted. Reading the small print is important in health matters too. The honest headline would be: "Smoking ban makes no difference"
The number of heart attack patients being admitted to emergency wards has fallen sharply in more than half of England's hospital trusts since smoking was banned in public places. The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, are an early indication of the impact of the smoking ban on heart disease rates in England. Some hospitals have seen the number of cases fall by 41 per cent since last July. The British Heart Foundation said that it showed the ban was the "most significant public health initiative this century".
Studies in Scotland and Ireland, which introduced a public-smoking ban in 2006, showed hospital admissions for heart attacks falling by 17 and 14 per cent respectively. Comparable evidence has come from France and Italy. These drops in the rate of heart attacks have been attributed to a large number of people stopping smoking, and far fewer people being exposed to airborne toxins through passive smoking.
The Government has not yet published figures documenting the effects of the ban in England. But NHS records show that there were 1,384 fewer heart attacks in the nine months after the legislation was introduced than in the same period a year earlier. The figures, obtained by the Daily Mail, show admissions for heart attacks from 114 trusts: 66 saw a drop in admissions compared with the same period the year before. The most striking figures came from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, where there was a 41 per cent fall, or 418 fewer cases. In the remaining 48 trusts, the number of admissions remained the same or increased slightly.
The Department of Health welcomed the figures as "good news" but added that it was too early to attribute falls in heart attack rates to the new legislation. Rates of heart disease were falling before smoking in public was banned in European countries, and various factors, including mild weather, can contribute to a fall. Nevertheless, the health benefits of stopping smoking are well established. A year after a person quits smoking, the risk of a heart attack falls to half that of a smoker.
Nicholas Boon, of the British Cardiovascular Society, said: "When you place these figures with the research in Scotland, Ireland, France and Rome, it is consistent with the observation that the ban has been followed by improvements in heart attack rates."
Source
Britain's socialists have INCREASED inequality
Attacking a major route to advancement -- the selective ("Grammar") schools did not help
Who would have thought that 11 years of a Labour government would make Britain more unequal? Yesterday's official statistics show that since 1997, the poor have - in relative terms - got poorer and the rich richer. Inequality in Britain is now at its highest level since it was first measured in 1961. And that is bound to put a dampener on Gordon Brown's attempts to make our society more mobile.
For the more unequal a nation is, the less social mobility it offers. David Cameron likes to claim that Britain is now a genuine meritocracy in which where we are going is more important than where we have come from. But that's simply not true if you look at the underlying figures. Our society is no more fluid now than it was a generation ago - and it is less fluid than it was a generation before that.
They buck you up, your mum and dad, or they muck you up. Either way, in modern Britain, what most determines where you will end up in life is your parents. If they are high-earning, ambitious professionals, the chances are you will be too. If they are poor and unemployed, you have only a small chance of improving your prospects, whatever the talents you were born with.
Britain - along with America - is one of the most socially rigid nations in the developed world. And that is not because it is uniquely difficult for a poor child to do well here. It is because there is so little downward mobility from the top. If your parents are in the top three social classes (out of the seven defined by sociologists), there is a 74 per cent chance that you will be too. It is only the fact that the middle classes have expanded, thanks to the economy generating more white-collar jobs, that some children born into the working class have been able to move up and join them.
Well-off children have an enormous head start in Britain, and the influences work on them long before they even begin school. The brightest poor children drop from the 88th percentile at the age of 3 (meaning that only 12 per cent of their contemporaries score more highly in tests) to the 65th by the age of 5. The least able rich children, meanwhile, move up from the 15th percentile at 3 to the 45th at 5. At that rate, the dim rich kids overtake the bright poor ones in test scores by the time they are just 7.
So it is not just innate ability that determines your fate. While it may - perhaps - be true that, on average, children of parents in intellectually demanding jobs have a higher IQ than those whose parents are poor and unemployed (as Bruce Charlton argued controversially in Times Higher Education), that could not on its own explain the fact that rich youngsters are more than four times more likely than poor ones to go to university.
Nurture seems to matter at least as much as nature. Children of poor parents here don't tend to be given the same intellectual stimulation or the same impetus to achieve. In a survey of 54 developed countries, England and Scotland showed the highest correlation between children's test scores and the number of books at home. Poor children are less likely to be read to, less likely to be taken to museums or the theatre and less likely to display the good behaviour and social skills that are also associated with success in later life.
They are also more likely to have parents who don't particularly value education. Attitudes to education are incredibly important - which is why disadvantaged Indian and Chinese pupils do much better at school than their white or Afro-Caribbean contemporaries from similar backgrounds.
Why are Britain and America (supposedly the land of opportunity) less mobile than other countries? Economists put it down to our high levels of inequality. The more unequal a society, the harder it is to move out of your social class. The distances are greater, for a start. It is no accident that the most socially mobile nations are Scandinavian.
How depressing, though, for Labour ministers that so much has been done to try to increase social mobility here to so little effect. There has been a huge redistribution of money from the middle classes to the poor. There has been extra investment in inner-city schools. And there has been the introduction of SureStart, a scheme aimed at improving the life chances of children from an early age. Yet all Labour has managed to do is stabilise the decline in mobility.
The trouble is that the countervailing forces have been so strong. The more that we move to a knowledge economy, the more employers value educational succ-ess. Jobs that used to be open to non-graduates now expect a degree, and junior employees without one can no longer hope to be promoted into them. Britain and the US have higher returns to education than most other countries, meaning that graduates can expect to earn far more than those who have not been to university.
This is something that middle-class parents understand, and all their efforts are devoted to ensuring that their children go to university - preferably one of the best ones - and end up in a good, graduate-only job. To this end, they work single-mindedly to find a place for their offspring in the best nursery school, the best primary and the best secondary. If they can't afford to go private, they may employ a tutor to top up at home what their children are taught at school. High educational achievement, for girls as well as boys, has become even more of a spur in middle-class families than it was a generation or two ago.
It is hard for poor parents to compete with these dedicated rivals. The working classes on the whole have a smaller (though often closer) network of friends. The middle classes tend to have a wider (if shallower) circle of acquaintances from whom they can get the best advice on schools, universities and jobs, and with whom they can place their children on work experience. They can afford to buy houses in better catchment areas. They have broadband internet access at home, shelves of books and quiet places for their children to study. They can even "help" with coursework.
Then there is what economists call "assortative mating". We tend to marry others from the same social class. When girls were not so well educated and mothers stayed at home, this made less difference. Now that high-achieving, high-earning men marry high-achieving, high-earning women who often carry on at work after they have children, the advantages for their offspring are greater still - and so is the polarisation of society.
And finally, of course, there is the question of private schools. Yes, state schools have improved in the past ten years. It would be a scandal if they hadn't, given the amount of money that has been poured into them. But private schools have improved at least as fast. They have upped their fees, allowing them to recruit better teachers and build more facilities. The best ones have become far more academically selective - witness the wails of Old Etonians who can no longer get their sons into the school.
We all know the odd privately educated person who ends up as a poverty-stricken failure. But that sort of downward mobility is almost perversely difficult to achieve in Britain. Private schools give children the social skills, the networks and the academic results that pretty much guarantee them the same status that their parents have enjoyed. In many private schools these days, every sixth-former goes on to higher education. After that start in life, it is pretty unlikely that they will be stacking supermarket shelves. As the Sutton Trust has shown, privately educated people still take a disproportionate share of Britain's top jobs.
There is nothing wrong with middle-class parents wanting the best for their children and going all out to achieve it. The left-wing response, led by Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has been to penalise these parents by introducing school lotteries and banning selection by interview. Rather than dragging them down, though, would it not be better to try to equalise the chances of less privileged children?
IntoUniversity, a charity with three centres in inner-city London, is trying to do just that. It offers disadvantaged youngsters the sort of opportunities and expectations that middle-class children take for granted. From the age of 7, it not only hosts after-school study sessions with tutors, books and computers, it also introduces the idea of university and professional careers to children who might never have contemplated them. They get taken to museums and theatres, take part in debates, do workshops with bankers and lawyers and journalists, and spend a week hosted by a university discovering how learning can be enjoyable.
Many are then paired with a mentor who is already an undergraduate, often from a similar background, who not only helps them study, but also makes university seem as normal an aspiration as it would be for a middle-class child. And the charity also gives help and guidance that their parents can't always offer: on GCSE and A-Level choices, filling in a UCAS form, choosing a course and a college.
It is startlingly successful and has so far sent more than 80 students to university. Ayisha Adedeji, now 19, started with IntoUniversity at primary school. She won straight As in her A Levels and is now studying law and sociology at Warwick. She remembers being taken on a trip to Belgium, ostensibly to learn about the Second World War, but also to help her and her fellow pupils raise their ambitions. "We stuck stickers on ourselves saying `I want to be a doctor' or `I want to be a lawyer'. IntoUniversity gave me that extra push."
Andrew Chaplin, a teacher at Walnut Tree Walk Primary School in inner-city Lambeth, recently took his whole Year 6 class to a week run by IntoUniversity. "Every child in the class now talks about going to university and what course they would like to do," he says. "It is something many of them would never have even considered before."
So these are the keys: early intervention to stop bright children tailing off before they reach school; high expectations from teachers to keep them on track when they get there; and initiatives such as IntoUniversity to replicate the home environment that middle-class children enjoy.
These things can work wonders. The introduction of really good universal childcare in Denmark in the 1970s doubled the odds of children with ill-educated parents completing the equivalent of A Levels. And a US programme, aimed at disadvantaged mothers while they are still pregnant and sends a nurse to visit them for the first two years of their child's life, has been shown to give the child a larger vocabulary and a higher IQ. A similar scheme is being piloted here.
Gordon Brown and David Cameron can argue over whether the State or the voluntary sector should be helping poor children to aim high. But they both want to extend opportunity more widely. And they must agree that - while they can't buy an Eton education for everyone - the great start in life that they enjoyed as children is a boon that is still spread far too unevenly in Britain.
Source
Upscale Brits moving out
Even Bulgaria seems preferable to some Brits
As the economic mood darkens, Britain's wealth generators are moving abroad. So where exactly is everybody heading? The exodus is accelerating faster than house prices are falling. Refusing to risk their livelihoods on our spluttering financial situation, or have their spirits crushed by fear of rising crime, a new swath of high-flyers, executives and entrepreneurs are departing Britain for fresher, brighter economies. Think Brazil, China, Morocco, even Bulgaria and Albania.
Up to one million more Britons are predicted to join the five million expatriates currently abroad over the next five years. But evidence suggests that, driven by the economic gloom, availability of property and the ease of working abroad via the internet, the departure rate will increase still further. Almost two million have moved away in the past decade, according to figures released last month, with 200,000 quitting our shores in 2006, the last year for which official statistics are available.
The figures make for happy reading for some. ''Our turnover has increased by more than 70 per cent," says former immigration officer Liam Clifford, who now runs Global Visas, which helps people negotiate the tortuous process of getting clearance to work abroad. "We are swamped. People are disillusioned with Britain, and the tax system is punishing working people. About half of those going are entrepreneurial, types - what you might call aspirational non-doms. The people with get-up-and-go are getting up and going."
Among them is Michael Loughlin, 39, whose company, Eurologix, based in Staffordshire, makes X-ray scanners for airports and prisons. He is moving his family and his company's manufacturing operations to Toronto, from where he will export back to Britain. ''The Canadian government is biting my arm off to get me there, offering financial incentives and introducing me to potential customers, but no one here cares. We don't support entrepreneurship any more."
Although the predicted exodus of hundreds of affluent non-doms from Britain has, to some extent, been averted by Government concessions, many other wealthy individuals are leaving, says Andrew Langton, chairman of international estate agents Aylesford International, which has offices in Spain and France. Forty per cent of his company's business is now in overseas property. ''Brits are saying enough is enough and are quitting the nanny state. Those who are successful are asking, why stick around here and lose everything to inheritance tax?"
Experts say the wealthy are moving themselves and their money to Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong - which, despite Chinese control, remains a temple to capitalism and offers the privacy in banking and tax affairs that are under fire in traditional havens such as Monaco. Closer to home, even the previously unsympathetic tax regimes of Spain and France have become more welcoming in comparison with Britain.
Figures from overseas property advice site BuyAssociation.co.uk support the trend towards an exodus of the more affluent: the number of inquiries from those planning to emigrate has risen seven per cent over the past year. A shift upwards to properties costing between œ100,000 and œ300,000 suggests that home owners are capitalising on their UK properties before prices slump even more. Paul Collins, the website's property editor, adds that inquiries about properties in excess of œ1 million have increased fourfold in the past year.
At the same time, people are becoming more adventurous about their destinations. ''We have recently introduced new online guides to buying property and living in Albania, India and Malaysia because of growing demand. And Morocco is attracting a lot of interest because it's a big country, with a good government, and there is a lot of development. It's only another 30 minutes' flying time from the Costa del Sol."
China, too, is attracting Brits because it is seen as a land of opportunity in the way that Russia was in the mid-1990s, but without the corruption and mafia. The Communist government is desperate to open up markets further to Western interests - the Olympics offers an ideal opportunity that they are exploiting to the max. Many rich people are also attracted to Hong Kong.
According to Paul Collins, it's the prospect of economic hardship on the horizon here that ''crystallises thinking among people, prompting them to make decisions about their future that they have been considering for some time". This was precisely the case with Barry and Barbara Mardell, who lived outside Bognor Regis in East Sussex, and who moved to Cyprus in April. Aged 56 and 52 respectively, they are some way off retiring, but sought a better lifestyle when forced to rely upon one salary after Mrs Mardell, a former executive with Qinetiq, the defence contractor, had to give up work on health grounds. '
'The quality of life in Britain is not what it was," says Mrs Mardell. ''Our village was no longer a real village because of over-development; we suffered every time the Government changed taxes to penalise middle- class, middle-income people and our children couldn't find work because the immigrants took all the jobs." Now settled in Cyprus, her husband is starting his own facilities management company and they are shortly about to move into a three-bedroom detached house with swimming pool.
Even Bulgaria is seen to offer more opportunities for a better life than Britain, says David Hollands, who set up PropertyBulgaria.com after realising that its low cost of living and competitively priced properties - a tenth of what they might cost in Tuscany or the Dordogne - would be attractive to disenchanted Brits. ''We are getting up to half a dozen inquiries a week from people who are going, or want to go in the immediate future," he says. ''People are fed with all the CCTV cameras, having all this global warming stuff rammed down their throats and not having anywhere to park the car."
One of those who have taken the plunge is Martin MacMaster, 40, who runs an agricultural contractors in Bedfordshire and will soon be moving most of his business to Bulgaria. "I'm fed up with the rising cost of everything, including diesel fuel. I've given up banging my head against a brick wall. The quality of life in this country has dropped by 50 per cent over the past five years. It's not a political thing," he adds. ''I didn't vote for any of them."
He is one of a number of potential wealth generators of the future who are now lost to Britain. Simon Greenwood, 27, and his partner Charlotte Senior, 28, both left behind the prospect of good careers in London for a fresh start in undeveloped Puglia, southern Italy. ''We were fed up with commuting and the rat race. When we come back now, London seems so crowded, polluted and dirty." In the three years since they left, Ms Senior has written a novel and they have started a company that helps others relocate to the area.
Next year, Damon Kestle, 40, and his wife, Sarah, who is expecting their first child, plan to move to Brazil to start a restaurant in a new luxury housing complex in the north-east of the country. Mr Kestle, who runs a gastro-pub in north London, says: "Making money is not the only reason for going there, but I think we can expect a better standard of living. The economy is growing and I think in five years' time it will become the place to be. We come from Nottingham, which has a very high crime rate, and we are living in north London, which is full of knife crime, so I think Brazil is actually a better place to bring up a child." Whether it is Brazil, Italy or Bulgaria, he speaks for many when he says of his new chosen home: "It is where we see our future."
Source
NHS reforms deliver no significant patient benefit
Rhetoric not matched by results
Almost 1 billion pounds spent increasing choice and competition in the health service has not delivered any significant benefits for patients, an official report published today says. Changes intended to introduce "market style" reforms in the NHS have delivered some improvements, the Audit Commission and Healthcare Commission concluded. But there was still "some way to go before patients see any significant benefits", said Ian Kennedy, the chairman of the Healthcare Commission, who co-authored the report. Around half of patients are still not being offered a choice about where they would like to be treated, the report found
The changes have also failed to increase the number of patients being treated outside hospital, one of the key aims of the reforms. Although there have been "significant improvements" in some areas, the report concluded that progress was "behind" what it might have been.
The reforms, brought in at different points since 2000, include allowing patients more choice about which hospital they visit, increased use of the private sector and paying hospitals a set rate for each procedure, encouraging them to treat more patients more efficiently. But they were introduced with no clear "vision", the report found, and no system was set up to monitor or evaluate if they were working.
In 2006 ministers announced that patients would be allowed to choose between a limited number of hospitals for their care, a policy extended to all hospitals earlier this year. However, the report found that only 50 per cent of patients were being offered any choice at all, well short of the government's target of 80 per cent. The health service also does not collect enough information to allow patients a true choice, the report found. Most patients want details on the quality of care provided by different hospitals but that data is not being collected by the Department of Health.
The report also shows that outpatient appointment numbers remained generally static across the country, despite a stated aim to treat more people in the community instead of in hospital. And only 16 per cent of GPs believe that a new system which gives them more control over money spent by their surgery had actually helped patients.
However, the report's authors said that the reforms could deliver benefit to patients in the future. "Conceptually the measures should work and we should look to the start of improvement. In the next couple of years we will know whether the idea was correct," Michael O'Higgins, chairman of the Audit Commission, who co-authored the document, said.
The Tories accused ministers of missing "a golden opportunity" to make a real difference to standards in the NHS. Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: "They have spent a lot but achieved far too little. "The Government has said many of the right things about reforming the NHS but when it comes to actually delivering them, it has dithered and delayed. Giving GPs responsibility for budgets for their patients should have been one of the strongest drivers of change but Labour hasn't implemented it. "Too much money that could have been spent on improving care for patients has been wasted."
Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: "This is a depressing verdict on 11 years of endless, contradictory reform in the NHS which have cost taxpayers a lot of money and delivered little benefit to patient care. "Choice in the NHS must be made to work for everyone. Without information and support for all patients, choice will succeed in only improving care for the well informed - leaving more disadvantaged groups behind."
Source
Saturday, June 14, 2008
"Busy" NHS hospital lets woman bleed to death
A teenager died a fortnight after having an abortion because of delays in giving her a vital blood transfusion, an inquest in Bristol has heard. A-level student Manon Jones, 18, from Caernarfon, Gwynedd began to bleed after the operation and admitted herself to hospital, where she died. A doctor told the inquest the Southmead Hospital ward in Bristol had been busy and "things could have been different". Miss Jones died in 2005. The coroner recorded a narrative verdict....
Two weeks after the procedure she went on holiday, against medical advice. She cut short her break after feeling ill and returned to Bristol, where she was a student, and admitted herself to Southmead Hospital. Initial blood tests taken at the hospital failed to alert medics to any serious condition, the coroner heard. But more tests showed she needed a blood transfusion.
However she was left waiting for the blood when another emergency broke out on the ward and her condition deteriorated, resulting in her needing life support. Post-mortem tests showed she died of low haemoglobin levels and shock caused by "retained products of conception" - that is the embryo.
Dr Lucy Jackson, who treated her at the hospital, said the results of an initial blood test did not immediately lead her to consider low haemoglobin levels. She said Miss Jones talked coherently when she arrived and bleeding was minimal.
Following a second blood test, Dr Jackson decided a blood transfusion was immediately required but Miss Jones was stable enough to "wait for the blood to arrive". The doctor was pulled away from Miss Jones when an emergency broke out elsewhere on the ward.
An emotional Dr Jackson told the inquest: "If we hadn't been so busy, particularly with the other emergency, we would have had more time and things could have been different."
The inquest heard from Dr Richard Porter, an obstetrician at Royal United Hospital, in Bath. He did not treat Miss Jones, but said it had been "wholly inadequate" to leave her waiting for a blood transfusion for more than four hours. But, the doctor said, it was "hard not to conclude" that Miss Jones would have survived had she not gone on holiday and had she attended hospital earlier.
The coroner said the death was not due to natural causes and a verdict of misadventure would have been inappropriate. He said the narrative verdict was because Miss Jones died as a result of retained products of conception following the termination of a pregnancy.
The coroner discussed the issue of neglect and said he did have concerns. He said an earlier transfusion of blood would have been likely to have saved her life. He also said that it was unsatisfactory that scans had gone missing.
More here
British cops surrender to Leftist thugs
BRITISH National Party members set to stage a controversial summer festival stormed out of a licensing meeting after police objected to their plan at the eleventh hour. However the BNP has vowed to go ahead with the event on land off Codnor Denby Lane despite withdrawing its application for a council license to sell alcohol and play live music.
BNP members were confronted by more than 30 protesters opposed to the party, who chanted and waved placards outside Ripley Town Hall before the meeting.
Derbyshire Constabulary had initially raised no objections to the festival, due to take place in August. However it changed its mind and submitted an objection after Amber Valley Borough Council's deadline after receiving "significant intelligence" opponents of the BNP would try and cause trouble at the event.
Party representatives told the council's licensing board on Tuesday the claims were "spurious and politically motivated" before branding the hearing a farce and withdrawing the application.
Craig Sutherland, solicitor for Derbyshire Police, told the meeting: "The fact is we are expecting trouble at this event. "We didn't object to this festival in 2007, and we didn't object initially in 2008 however towards the end of May the intelligence picture changed. "We have started to receive intelligence to say that groups opposed to the BNP may attack people attending this festival. "Having a large number of individuals with opposing views together in one area like this is going to be a powder keg."
Mr Sutherland told the panel that if they were willing to let the event go ahead they would like to see several new conditions in place including a seven foot high fence around the entire site and temporary security lighting installed.
John Walker, national treasurer of the BNP, said afterwards: "We came here with an open mind. As it went on we came to the conclusion that it was becoming a farce because of the hoops we were being asked to jump through by Derbyshire Police. "The police have caved in to mob rule. We are going to withdraw this application and this event will go ahead without a licence."
BNP member Alan Warner, who hosts the event on his land in Denby, said: "The festival will be going ahead. We won't be selling alcohol but people will be able to bring their own and there will be recorded music and music from the fair ground. "The police still have to police the event. I'm looking forward to it, hopefully it will be even better than last year. We're hoping to have as many as 5000 people here."
Peter Carney, Chief Executive at Amber Valley Borough Council said: "The organisers will now not be permitted to provide any licensable activities during the course of the festival, should it go ahead. They will not be able to sell alcohol on site and live or recorded music as a main activity will not be allowed at the event. "The Council will be considering, with the police, what further steps we will take in respect of the concerns raised by them and by residents at the hearing if the organisers decide to go ahead with the event despite the withdrawal of the application."
Source
Aggressive British police
But only towards law-abiding people
A man who laughed too hard at a comedian on TV ended up being pepper sprayed at his home by UK police and spending the night naked in a cell. Chris Cocker, 36, from Blackburn, laughed so hard while watching BBC TV's Have I Got News For You that he fell off the sofa, the BBC reported. A neighbour in the flat below heard the thud and called police.
"I fell off the settee in hysterics and hit the floor and got myself up and started carrying on watching the telly and the next thing I know there was a knock on the door," Mr Cocker said. The knock was from police officers, but Mr Cocker was not happy to see them and refused to co-operate.
"The bit where I lost it the most was when I shut the door and the policeman had stuck his foot in the doorway and was refusing to let me shut my own front door," he said. Police then pepper-sprayed Mr Cocker, bundled him into a police van and took him to a police station where he said he was stripped naked and made to spend a night in a jail cell, the BBC said.
Lancashire Police said the officers used the pepper spray after fearing for their safety when Mr Cocker became aggressive [What pansies!]. Mr Cocker admitted in court that he had resisted a police officer, the BBC said. He was given a conditional discharge for assault.
Source
Breast cancer victims have normal lifespan - if it is detected early enough
Women whose breast cancers are detected early live as long as those who never developed the disease, a new audit has shown. The findings will come as a huge boost to the more than 60 per cent of women whose cancers are detected when small and before they have spread to the lymph nodes. The new audit, by the Association of Breast Surgery and the NHS Breast Screening Programme, traced the outcomes for women with breast cancer diagnosed in 1990-91 and 2000-01.
Women in the first group whose prognosis at the time of detection was classified as "excellent" showed the same life expectancy as women of the same age who had never had cancer. This was also true for the second group of women whose prognosis was "good". The two categories include 61 per cent of cancers detected through screening.
The audit also showed that survival rates are also improving for women with more aggressive types of breast cancer. Overall, 15-year survival stands at 86 per cent for women with a screen-detected invasive breast cancer in England, Wales and Northern Ire-land. But not all breast cancers are screen-detected. About two thirds are found in other ways, either because they appear during the intervals between screenings and produce symptoms, or because they occur in women who fall outside the age groups routinely screened. Screening is to be extended to include women aged between 47 and 73 by 2012. This means that an extra 400,000 women a year will be screened and an increased proportion of cancers detected.
Martin Lee, president of the Association of Breast Surgery, said: "It is vital that women are aware of the excellent survival now achieved for breast cancers diagnosed through screening and they should be confident in the quality of the service they receive. I would encourage all women who are invited to be screened to attend. Any woman who has previously ignored an invitation to breast screening should contact her local unit."
Professor Julietta Patnick, director of the NHS Breast Screening Programme, said that this year marked the twentieth anniversary of the introduction of breast screening in England. "Huge strides have been made over the past two decades and more women than ever before are surviving breast cancer, many of whom have benefited from early detection through routine breast screening," she said.
Gill Lawrence, director of the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit, which coordinates the audit, said that over the past 12 years it had mapped improvements in the quality of the screening programme. "The data clearly demonstrate significant improvements in the quality of the service women receive, from the reduction in the number of women requiring surgery to obtain a definitive diagnosis of breast cancer, to an increase in the proportion of cancers that are diagnosed through screening" she said.
Source
Bungling Brits can't even run nuclear subs safely: "A minister and the head of the Royal Navy made public apologies yesterday after a report into the deaths of two crew who were killed in an explosion on a nuclear submarine uncovered safety flaws and dangerously defective equipment. Leading Operator Mechanic Paul McCann, 32, and Operator Mechanic Anthony Huntrod, 20, were killed on board HMS Tireless when an oxygen-generating device blew up as they activated it during a training exercise under the Arctic ice cap on March 20 last year. The board of inquiry discovered that 996 of the "Scogs" (self-contained oxygen generators) had been defined as unserviceable and placed in a hazardous waste store. But they had been put back into service, regraded "A1" and the relevant paperwork had been changed. Royal Navy military police also found that the sodium chlorate briquettes in the containers, which had to be ignited to produce oxygen, had been removed from drying ovens too soon, which had led to cracks."
One British Conservative still fights for liberty: "The Conservative Party was tonight reeling from the extraordinary resignation of one of their most senior frontbenchers to fight an unprecedented "single-issue" by-election. David Davis, a right-winger and one of the Tories' political heavyweights, stunned Westminster by announcing he was quitting as both an MP and Shadow Home Secretary to fight against the Government's "strangulation" of British freedoms. Mr Davis, who lost the 2005 Tory leadership contest to David Cameron, has been the driving force behind Tory opposition to Gordon Brown's plans to extend detention without charge for terrorist suspects from 28 to 42 days. He is known as a staunch libertarian."
A teenager died a fortnight after having an abortion because of delays in giving her a vital blood transfusion, an inquest in Bristol has heard. A-level student Manon Jones, 18, from Caernarfon, Gwynedd began to bleed after the operation and admitted herself to hospital, where she died. A doctor told the inquest the Southmead Hospital ward in Bristol had been busy and "things could have been different". Miss Jones died in 2005. The coroner recorded a narrative verdict....
Two weeks after the procedure she went on holiday, against medical advice. She cut short her break after feeling ill and returned to Bristol, where she was a student, and admitted herself to Southmead Hospital. Initial blood tests taken at the hospital failed to alert medics to any serious condition, the coroner heard. But more tests showed she needed a blood transfusion.
However she was left waiting for the blood when another emergency broke out on the ward and her condition deteriorated, resulting in her needing life support. Post-mortem tests showed she died of low haemoglobin levels and shock caused by "retained products of conception" - that is the embryo.
Dr Lucy Jackson, who treated her at the hospital, said the results of an initial blood test did not immediately lead her to consider low haemoglobin levels. She said Miss Jones talked coherently when she arrived and bleeding was minimal.
Following a second blood test, Dr Jackson decided a blood transfusion was immediately required but Miss Jones was stable enough to "wait for the blood to arrive". The doctor was pulled away from Miss Jones when an emergency broke out elsewhere on the ward.
An emotional Dr Jackson told the inquest: "If we hadn't been so busy, particularly with the other emergency, we would have had more time and things could have been different."
The inquest heard from Dr Richard Porter, an obstetrician at Royal United Hospital, in Bath. He did not treat Miss Jones, but said it had been "wholly inadequate" to leave her waiting for a blood transfusion for more than four hours. But, the doctor said, it was "hard not to conclude" that Miss Jones would have survived had she not gone on holiday and had she attended hospital earlier.
The coroner said the death was not due to natural causes and a verdict of misadventure would have been inappropriate. He said the narrative verdict was because Miss Jones died as a result of retained products of conception following the termination of a pregnancy.
The coroner discussed the issue of neglect and said he did have concerns. He said an earlier transfusion of blood would have been likely to have saved her life. He also said that it was unsatisfactory that scans had gone missing.
More here
British cops surrender to Leftist thugs
BRITISH National Party members set to stage a controversial summer festival stormed out of a licensing meeting after police objected to their plan at the eleventh hour. However the BNP has vowed to go ahead with the event on land off Codnor Denby Lane despite withdrawing its application for a council license to sell alcohol and play live music.
BNP members were confronted by more than 30 protesters opposed to the party, who chanted and waved placards outside Ripley Town Hall before the meeting.
Derbyshire Constabulary had initially raised no objections to the festival, due to take place in August. However it changed its mind and submitted an objection after Amber Valley Borough Council's deadline after receiving "significant intelligence" opponents of the BNP would try and cause trouble at the event.
Party representatives told the council's licensing board on Tuesday the claims were "spurious and politically motivated" before branding the hearing a farce and withdrawing the application.
Craig Sutherland, solicitor for Derbyshire Police, told the meeting: "The fact is we are expecting trouble at this event. "We didn't object to this festival in 2007, and we didn't object initially in 2008 however towards the end of May the intelligence picture changed. "We have started to receive intelligence to say that groups opposed to the BNP may attack people attending this festival. "Having a large number of individuals with opposing views together in one area like this is going to be a powder keg."
Mr Sutherland told the panel that if they were willing to let the event go ahead they would like to see several new conditions in place including a seven foot high fence around the entire site and temporary security lighting installed.
John Walker, national treasurer of the BNP, said afterwards: "We came here with an open mind. As it went on we came to the conclusion that it was becoming a farce because of the hoops we were being asked to jump through by Derbyshire Police. "The police have caved in to mob rule. We are going to withdraw this application and this event will go ahead without a licence."
BNP member Alan Warner, who hosts the event on his land in Denby, said: "The festival will be going ahead. We won't be selling alcohol but people will be able to bring their own and there will be recorded music and music from the fair ground. "The police still have to police the event. I'm looking forward to it, hopefully it will be even better than last year. We're hoping to have as many as 5000 people here."
Peter Carney, Chief Executive at Amber Valley Borough Council said: "The organisers will now not be permitted to provide any licensable activities during the course of the festival, should it go ahead. They will not be able to sell alcohol on site and live or recorded music as a main activity will not be allowed at the event. "The Council will be considering, with the police, what further steps we will take in respect of the concerns raised by them and by residents at the hearing if the organisers decide to go ahead with the event despite the withdrawal of the application."
Source
Aggressive British police
But only towards law-abiding people
A man who laughed too hard at a comedian on TV ended up being pepper sprayed at his home by UK police and spending the night naked in a cell. Chris Cocker, 36, from Blackburn, laughed so hard while watching BBC TV's Have I Got News For You that he fell off the sofa, the BBC reported. A neighbour in the flat below heard the thud and called police.
"I fell off the settee in hysterics and hit the floor and got myself up and started carrying on watching the telly and the next thing I know there was a knock on the door," Mr Cocker said. The knock was from police officers, but Mr Cocker was not happy to see them and refused to co-operate.
"The bit where I lost it the most was when I shut the door and the policeman had stuck his foot in the doorway and was refusing to let me shut my own front door," he said. Police then pepper-sprayed Mr Cocker, bundled him into a police van and took him to a police station where he said he was stripped naked and made to spend a night in a jail cell, the BBC said.
Lancashire Police said the officers used the pepper spray after fearing for their safety when Mr Cocker became aggressive [What pansies!]. Mr Cocker admitted in court that he had resisted a police officer, the BBC said. He was given a conditional discharge for assault.
Source
Breast cancer victims have normal lifespan - if it is detected early enough
Women whose breast cancers are detected early live as long as those who never developed the disease, a new audit has shown. The findings will come as a huge boost to the more than 60 per cent of women whose cancers are detected when small and before they have spread to the lymph nodes. The new audit, by the Association of Breast Surgery and the NHS Breast Screening Programme, traced the outcomes for women with breast cancer diagnosed in 1990-91 and 2000-01.
Women in the first group whose prognosis at the time of detection was classified as "excellent" showed the same life expectancy as women of the same age who had never had cancer. This was also true for the second group of women whose prognosis was "good". The two categories include 61 per cent of cancers detected through screening.
The audit also showed that survival rates are also improving for women with more aggressive types of breast cancer. Overall, 15-year survival stands at 86 per cent for women with a screen-detected invasive breast cancer in England, Wales and Northern Ire-land. But not all breast cancers are screen-detected. About two thirds are found in other ways, either because they appear during the intervals between screenings and produce symptoms, or because they occur in women who fall outside the age groups routinely screened. Screening is to be extended to include women aged between 47 and 73 by 2012. This means that an extra 400,000 women a year will be screened and an increased proportion of cancers detected.
Martin Lee, president of the Association of Breast Surgery, said: "It is vital that women are aware of the excellent survival now achieved for breast cancers diagnosed through screening and they should be confident in the quality of the service they receive. I would encourage all women who are invited to be screened to attend. Any woman who has previously ignored an invitation to breast screening should contact her local unit."
Professor Julietta Patnick, director of the NHS Breast Screening Programme, said that this year marked the twentieth anniversary of the introduction of breast screening in England. "Huge strides have been made over the past two decades and more women than ever before are surviving breast cancer, many of whom have benefited from early detection through routine breast screening," she said.
Gill Lawrence, director of the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit, which coordinates the audit, said that over the past 12 years it had mapped improvements in the quality of the screening programme. "The data clearly demonstrate significant improvements in the quality of the service women receive, from the reduction in the number of women requiring surgery to obtain a definitive diagnosis of breast cancer, to an increase in the proportion of cancers that are diagnosed through screening" she said.
Source
Bungling Brits can't even run nuclear subs safely: "A minister and the head of the Royal Navy made public apologies yesterday after a report into the deaths of two crew who were killed in an explosion on a nuclear submarine uncovered safety flaws and dangerously defective equipment. Leading Operator Mechanic Paul McCann, 32, and Operator Mechanic Anthony Huntrod, 20, were killed on board HMS Tireless when an oxygen-generating device blew up as they activated it during a training exercise under the Arctic ice cap on March 20 last year. The board of inquiry discovered that 996 of the "Scogs" (self-contained oxygen generators) had been defined as unserviceable and placed in a hazardous waste store. But they had been put back into service, regraded "A1" and the relevant paperwork had been changed. Royal Navy military police also found that the sodium chlorate briquettes in the containers, which had to be ignited to produce oxygen, had been removed from drying ovens too soon, which had led to cracks."
One British Conservative still fights for liberty: "The Conservative Party was tonight reeling from the extraordinary resignation of one of their most senior frontbenchers to fight an unprecedented "single-issue" by-election. David Davis, a right-winger and one of the Tories' political heavyweights, stunned Westminster by announcing he was quitting as both an MP and Shadow Home Secretary to fight against the Government's "strangulation" of British freedoms. Mr Davis, who lost the 2005 Tory leadership contest to David Cameron, has been the driving force behind Tory opposition to Gordon Brown's plans to extend detention without charge for terrorist suspects from 28 to 42 days. He is known as a staunch libertarian."
Friday, June 13, 2008
Does mass immigration cause problems?
The British government has a solution: More bureaucrats! Only in Britain
The first specialist team designed to help local councils cope with the massive influx of immigrants will begin work this summer. A rural council in Norfolk will receive three experts from the Department for Communities and Local Government to ease the problems associated with new arrivals from abroad. Communities Secretary Hazel Blears said she was confident that the specialist cohesion teams would successfully tackle immigration related problems.
The first pilot team will begin working in Breckland district council in the summer and will remain there for about three months. Ms Blears also indicated that she did not believe that individual hospitals and police forces should receive money from a new fund raised from a levy on immigration applications.
Instead, the cash should be spent on integrated websites for migrants, on English language training or other, broader, projects, she said. "I think we can make the most of it by not providing bits and bobs to individual hospitals and local police forces," she told an audience in north London.
Ms Blears' statement is the first indication of how money from the new fund, first announced in February, may be spent by the Government. It is due to operate from next April.
Cambridgeshire chief constable Julie Spence indicated earlier this year that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had said police forces struggling to cope with an influx of migrants may have been entitled to some extra cash from the fund.
Speaking at the launch of a strategy designed to manage the impact of migration, Ms Blears said Breckland council saw its population rise by more than 1,300 in 2005/06, almost entirely due to the arrival of immigrants from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Portugal.
Source
What is wrong with Britain's proposed new polyclinics? Try the death of GP care
Britain may get more opening hours and new equipment but the doctor-patient relationship will suffer
Those mourning the absence of the English football team from Euro 2008 have a new spectator sport to distract them: the battle between health ministers and the medical profession over polyclinics, the Department of Health's brave new vision for healthcare. Doctors argue that the Government is adopting a Steve McClaren approach, with ill-conceived tactics that will end in tears; while politicians accuse the medics of acting like prima donnas - interested only in themselves, while currying favour with patients by kissing the NHS club badge.
The debate boils down to this. Last year's review by Lord Darzi of Denham into healthcare in London suggested the development of new facilities to increase the range of services for patients - polyclinics. The Government is mightily impressed with this idea and wants to run with it the length and breadth of England. The medical profession isn't, and wants to trip it up. Shiny new facilities, extended opening hours, multiple services under one roof? What's not to like?
Quite a lot, in fact. Open-all-hours surgeries may appeal to time-pressed, worried-well commuters. But to the most needy users - young families, the chronically sick, the elderly - geographical convenience is more important. Centralised services may make impressive buildings and economic sense, but are little use to Zimmer-frame-hampered patients.
Another disadvantage is the loss of continuity. It may be difficult to establish doctor-patient rapport in a polyclinic, given the number of staff, their shift patterns and the facelessness of the service. Cynics say that continuity is less sacred than the medical profession would have you believe - and, if the worst of a patient's problems is an ingrowing toenail, they may have a point. But for patients with multipathology - and, in our ageing society, that is a significant constituency - continuity is key. With it, patients have a clear point of reference, someone with his finger on the physical and metaphorical pulse; without it, there is a real risk of duplication, omission and disintegrated care.
"Care" is a killer word in the polyclinic debate. A clear message from countless patient-satisfaction surveys is that, while GPs may not always be able to cure, they do care. Whether this key facet of general practice will be retained in the new era remains to be seen. There are certainly concerns that the threat of privatisation - which many believe goes hand in hand with polyclinics - could make staff and managers focus more on income than illness.
Of course, ministers have ready answers to these objections. To a degree, they have a point: the new plans might work well for some people in some areas. They would argue that much of the opposition is simply the reflex rant of a profession notorious for its resistance to change - although this is not surprising if the change involves being coerced into new working patterns or environments, or seeing your lovingly nurtured patient list swallowed up by the corporate clinic down the road.
But the Department of Health might do well to look behind the rhetoric to ask why we medics - backed by the BMA, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the King's Fund and many patients - are quite so sceptical. Partly, it's change fatigue. Doctors emerge from one set of time-consuming reforms to find that another pile has landed on their desks - each reinventing the wheel and distracting from patient care. Then there is the feeling that we are being bullied. GPs are still licking their wounds from the fight with the Government over extended opening, in which they were given a choice between a slap round the face and a doing-over with a baseball bat.
These latest changes feel as if they are being imposed from above. Then there is a nagging suspicion that the polyclinic is just another bright idea. One which, like NHS Direct, walk-in centres, choose and book, computerised records, smacks of expensive, focus-group-driven initiatives, pandering to those with plenty of health wants but few genuine health needs.
Most of all, though, the medical profession's fire is fuelled by anxiety that the precious fundamentals of traditional healthcare - personalised care, continuity and patient advocacy - are in jeopardy. The polyclinic is perceived as a threat to the heart and soul of general practice.
A brief scroll down the GP forums confirms this - "One-to-one GP care will be lost forever", "The structure of family medicine in this country is being destroyed" and "This is the death knell for general practice". This depth of feeling won't be appeased by any semantic re-jigging of the concept - politicians should be less fixated on gratuitous innovation and more appreciative of what they have already. Otherwise, they will score an own goal that will relegate traditional general practice to the status of the English football team: talented, sorely missed and criminally redundant.
Source
Batty Britain again: Breastfeeding is a danger to health and safety!
Anybody in any position of authority in England just loves dictating to people
A mother was told she should not use a doctor's surgery to breast-feed her baby because she wasn't a patient there. Terri-Ann Barnes, 23, went into the practice with her three-month-old son Christian to shelter from a storm. She asked the receptionist if she could breast-feed him, as the waiting room was empty - and was told she could. But afterwards, a nurse at the Heavitree Health Centre in Exeter told her she should not have been allowed to feed him there, for health and safety reasons.
The young mother said: 'I was only in there for a few minutes but a nurse said I shouldn't use the waiting room because I wasn't a patient there. 'The waiting room was empty so I assumed it would be fine. She said it wasn't a drop-in centre. I was shocked. If you can't breast-feed in a doctor's surgery where can you?'
But practice manager Len Young said: 'The nurse asked her which doctor she was registered with, and she said she was not with the surgery. 'The nurse responded that she did not know if she should be using the facilities from a health and safety point of view.'
Source
GREEN ENERGY FIASCO: BRITAIN IS SET TO LOSE NEARLY HALF OF ITS ELECTRIVITY
Every day we hear that Britain is facing a 'fuel crisis'. The world oil price breaks records every week. The cost of petrol and gas soars. Foreign suppliers of gas and oil are holding Britain to ransom and charging exorbitant prices. The average family, we are told, faces fuel bills of 1,500 pounds a year. Yet all this pales into insignificance compared with the real energy crisis roaring down on Britain with the speed of a bullet train as, within six or seven years, we stand to lose 40 per cent of all our existing electricity-generating capacity.
Thanks to decades of neglect and wishful thinking by successive governments - and now the devastating impact of a directive from Brussels - we are about to see 17 of our major power stations forced to close, leaving us with a massive shortfall.
Even after 2010, the experts say our power stations cannot be guaranteed to provide us with a continuous supply, meaning that we face the possibility of power cuts far worse than those which recently - largely unreported - blacked out half-a-million homes. By 2015, when the power stations which meet two-fifths of our current electricity needs have gone out of business, we could be facing the most serious disruption to our power supplies since the 'three-day week' of the 1970s.
But the impact of such power cuts on the Britain of today would be far more damaging than they were in the time of Edward Heath 35 years ago. Compared with then, our dependence on continuous electricity supplies is infinitely greater - thanks, above all, to our reliance on computers. We are no longer talking just about factories shutting down or lighting our homes with candles. Without computers, our entire economy would grind to a halt. Scarcely an office, shop, bank or hospital in the land would be able to function. Our railway system would be immobilised. Road traffic would be in chaos as traffic lights ceased to operate and petrol stations closed down. Yet this is the scale of the catastrophe which may be facing us, thanks to the failure of government to give Britain a proper energy policy.
Scaremongering? Just look at the hard facts. At the moment, to meet Britain's peak electricity demand, our power stations need to provide a minimum 56 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. Ten gigawatts, nearly a fifth, comes from our ageing nuclear power stations, all but one of which are so old that over the next few years they will have reached the end of their useful working life. On top of that, however, we shall also have to shut down nine more major power stations - six coal-fired, three oil-fired - forced to close by the crippling cost of complying with an EU anti-pollution law, the so-called Large Combustion Plants directive. This will take out another 13GW of capacity, bringing the total shortfall to 22GW - a staggering 40 per cent of the 56GW we have today.
Waking up at last to the scale of the abyss that is yawning before us, our Government - not least Prime Minister Gordon Brown - has realised the only way to avert this disaster must be to build as fast as possible at least 20 new power stations, gasfired, coal-fired or nuclear.
Part of the cause of this crisis was that, for more than two decades, we went for gas-fired power stations, in the days when we still had abundant supplies of cheap gas from the North Sea. But that is fast running out. Within 12 years, we shall have to import 80 per cent of our gas, at a time when world prices are soaring - and it would be folly to become over-dependent for our energy on countries as politically unreliable as Mr Putin's Russia, where gas is produced.
Building new coal-fired stations might have made more sense if we hadn't closed down most of our own coal industry, and if this didn't now involve the colossal extra costs imposed by the new EU rules. As we saw from the recent response to a proposed new coal-fired plant in Kent, any mention of coal-burning has the green lobby screaming up the wall.
As the Government itself has belatedly recognised, by far the most sensible way to try to fill the gap would be to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. But how on earth is this to be done? There are only a handful of companies equipped to build these nuclear power plants, and countries all over the world are queuing up to place their own orders. Until October 2006, the British Government itself owned one such firm, Westinghouse, but in an act of supreme folly we sold it to Toshiba in Japan for a knockdown 2.8 billion - and it has 19 new orders on its books already.
Our best hope, it seems, is the state-owned French company EDF (ElectricitÈ de France), which has recently been bidding to buy British Energy, owner of almost all our existing nuclear power stations. These would provide the most obvious sites on which to build new ones.
France, of course, went for nuclear energy in a big way just when we were retreating from it - having been world leader for 20 years - and currently derives 80 per cent of its electricity from 58 nuclear power stations. But with such a worldwide demand for new nuclear power, what chance is there that even EDF could provide enough reactors to meet our needs, when building each new one might take ten years or more?
Yet another reason why we have allowed this mindbogglingly serious crisis to creep up on us has been the obsession of those who rule us - both in London and in Brussels - with 'renewable' energy. Incredibly, we are 'obliged' by the EU, within 12 years, to generate no less than 38 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources - such as tens of thousands of wind turbines - when currently only 4 per cent comes from renewables, with wind farms providing barely 1 per cent. As our Government privately recognises, we have no hope of achieving even a fraction of that target (we would anyway need to build a mass of new conventional power stations simply to supply back-up when the wind is not blowing).
Whichever way it is looked at, Britain is threatened by what, thanks to years of dereliction and misjudgment, has become arguably our most serious potential crisis of modern times. Politically, the blame for this astounding mess lies in all directions - with the Tories, with Labour, with Brussels, with those smugly shortsighted 'environmentalists'. But all that matters now is that we put the need to avert this disaster right at the top of our national political agenda. We need to get on with solving as terrifying a problem as our politicians have ever faced.
Source
Another British security bungle: "One of Britain's top intelligence officials left a file with secret documents about Iraq and al-Qaeda on a train, in an embarrassing government security breach that was exposed today. A passenger found the orange folder on a train and handed it in to the BBC, which said it contained top secret documents on Iraq and al-Qaeda. The Cabinet Office, the central government department that supports the work of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, acknowledged the incident and said it had called in a police investigation. "The documents were secret. They were in the possession of a senior intelligence official who works in the Cabinet Office. They were lost on a train," a Cabinet Office spokesman said. "They were retrieved by a member of the public who handed them to the BBC," he said. "When the official realised what had happened, he reported it immediately to the Cabinet Office. We called the police in and they launched an investigation."
Jeremy Clarkson on the Prius: "Wikipedia says the Toyota Prius looks like and performs like a normal car but delivers 50% better fuel economy. That's not true. A Prius doesn't look or perform like a normal car and it will do only 45mpg - far, far less than you'd get from a Golf diesel, say. I harbour a belief, founded on an admittedly limited grasp of science, that if you removed the electric motor and the batteries from a Toyota Prius, you'd save so much weight that it would become more economical and therefore even kinder to the environment. But saving polar bears, of course, is not the point of a hybrid car. The point is not to save the planet but to be seen trying. I saw a Prius in California the other day with the registration plate "Hug Life" and that's what the car does. It says to other road users, "Hey. I've spent a lot of money on this flimsy p.o.s. and I'm chewing a lot of fuel too. But I'm making a green statement."
"Bed & Breakfast" hosts hit by EU directive on pets: "Cats, dogs and other household pets are about to be banished from the kitchens of Britain's 20,000 B&Bs. No longer will hosts be able to prepare a farmhouse fry-up for their guests while the family labrador snoozes in a basket by the Aga. B&B owners, who already complain of being overburdened by regulation, now face the enforcement by health inspectors of a European Union directive banning animals from food preparation areas. In response many are thinking of closing their doors to guests at a time when the domestic holiday market is booming. The EU directive became law in 2006 but its effects are only now filtering through. The regulations apply to all food preparation areas, regardless of size. Those finding it hardest to adapt to the new rules are farmhouse B&Bs, where guests are put up in the family home and treated to a freshly cooked breakfast in the owner's kitchen.
The workshy British are losing out to migrants: "Low-skilled British workers are losing to foreign migrants in the jobs market because they are unemployable and lack the motivation to work, according to a government report published yesterday. The arrival of an estimated one million Eastern European migrants had not increased unemployment among native Britons or lowered their wages, according to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) study. While migrants from the eight former Soviet bloc states that joined the EU in 2004 found it easy to find work, Britons encountered difficulties because of "issues around basic employability skills, incentives and motivation". [I doubt if there would be any Australians surprised by this]
The British government has a solution: More bureaucrats! Only in Britain
The first specialist team designed to help local councils cope with the massive influx of immigrants will begin work this summer. A rural council in Norfolk will receive three experts from the Department for Communities and Local Government to ease the problems associated with new arrivals from abroad. Communities Secretary Hazel Blears said she was confident that the specialist cohesion teams would successfully tackle immigration related problems.
The first pilot team will begin working in Breckland district council in the summer and will remain there for about three months. Ms Blears also indicated that she did not believe that individual hospitals and police forces should receive money from a new fund raised from a levy on immigration applications.
Instead, the cash should be spent on integrated websites for migrants, on English language training or other, broader, projects, she said. "I think we can make the most of it by not providing bits and bobs to individual hospitals and local police forces," she told an audience in north London.
Ms Blears' statement is the first indication of how money from the new fund, first announced in February, may be spent by the Government. It is due to operate from next April.
Cambridgeshire chief constable Julie Spence indicated earlier this year that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had said police forces struggling to cope with an influx of migrants may have been entitled to some extra cash from the fund.
Speaking at the launch of a strategy designed to manage the impact of migration, Ms Blears said Breckland council saw its population rise by more than 1,300 in 2005/06, almost entirely due to the arrival of immigrants from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Portugal.
Source
What is wrong with Britain's proposed new polyclinics? Try the death of GP care
Britain may get more opening hours and new equipment but the doctor-patient relationship will suffer
Those mourning the absence of the English football team from Euro 2008 have a new spectator sport to distract them: the battle between health ministers and the medical profession over polyclinics, the Department of Health's brave new vision for healthcare. Doctors argue that the Government is adopting a Steve McClaren approach, with ill-conceived tactics that will end in tears; while politicians accuse the medics of acting like prima donnas - interested only in themselves, while currying favour with patients by kissing the NHS club badge.
The debate boils down to this. Last year's review by Lord Darzi of Denham into healthcare in London suggested the development of new facilities to increase the range of services for patients - polyclinics. The Government is mightily impressed with this idea and wants to run with it the length and breadth of England. The medical profession isn't, and wants to trip it up. Shiny new facilities, extended opening hours, multiple services under one roof? What's not to like?
Quite a lot, in fact. Open-all-hours surgeries may appeal to time-pressed, worried-well commuters. But to the most needy users - young families, the chronically sick, the elderly - geographical convenience is more important. Centralised services may make impressive buildings and economic sense, but are little use to Zimmer-frame-hampered patients.
Another disadvantage is the loss of continuity. It may be difficult to establish doctor-patient rapport in a polyclinic, given the number of staff, their shift patterns and the facelessness of the service. Cynics say that continuity is less sacred than the medical profession would have you believe - and, if the worst of a patient's problems is an ingrowing toenail, they may have a point. But for patients with multipathology - and, in our ageing society, that is a significant constituency - continuity is key. With it, patients have a clear point of reference, someone with his finger on the physical and metaphorical pulse; without it, there is a real risk of duplication, omission and disintegrated care.
"Care" is a killer word in the polyclinic debate. A clear message from countless patient-satisfaction surveys is that, while GPs may not always be able to cure, they do care. Whether this key facet of general practice will be retained in the new era remains to be seen. There are certainly concerns that the threat of privatisation - which many believe goes hand in hand with polyclinics - could make staff and managers focus more on income than illness.
Of course, ministers have ready answers to these objections. To a degree, they have a point: the new plans might work well for some people in some areas. They would argue that much of the opposition is simply the reflex rant of a profession notorious for its resistance to change - although this is not surprising if the change involves being coerced into new working patterns or environments, or seeing your lovingly nurtured patient list swallowed up by the corporate clinic down the road.
But the Department of Health might do well to look behind the rhetoric to ask why we medics - backed by the BMA, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the King's Fund and many patients - are quite so sceptical. Partly, it's change fatigue. Doctors emerge from one set of time-consuming reforms to find that another pile has landed on their desks - each reinventing the wheel and distracting from patient care. Then there is the feeling that we are being bullied. GPs are still licking their wounds from the fight with the Government over extended opening, in which they were given a choice between a slap round the face and a doing-over with a baseball bat.
These latest changes feel as if they are being imposed from above. Then there is a nagging suspicion that the polyclinic is just another bright idea. One which, like NHS Direct, walk-in centres, choose and book, computerised records, smacks of expensive, focus-group-driven initiatives, pandering to those with plenty of health wants but few genuine health needs.
Most of all, though, the medical profession's fire is fuelled by anxiety that the precious fundamentals of traditional healthcare - personalised care, continuity and patient advocacy - are in jeopardy. The polyclinic is perceived as a threat to the heart and soul of general practice.
A brief scroll down the GP forums confirms this - "One-to-one GP care will be lost forever", "The structure of family medicine in this country is being destroyed" and "This is the death knell for general practice". This depth of feeling won't be appeased by any semantic re-jigging of the concept - politicians should be less fixated on gratuitous innovation and more appreciative of what they have already. Otherwise, they will score an own goal that will relegate traditional general practice to the status of the English football team: talented, sorely missed and criminally redundant.
Source
Batty Britain again: Breastfeeding is a danger to health and safety!
Anybody in any position of authority in England just loves dictating to people
A mother was told she should not use a doctor's surgery to breast-feed her baby because she wasn't a patient there. Terri-Ann Barnes, 23, went into the practice with her three-month-old son Christian to shelter from a storm. She asked the receptionist if she could breast-feed him, as the waiting room was empty - and was told she could. But afterwards, a nurse at the Heavitree Health Centre in Exeter told her she should not have been allowed to feed him there, for health and safety reasons.
The young mother said: 'I was only in there for a few minutes but a nurse said I shouldn't use the waiting room because I wasn't a patient there. 'The waiting room was empty so I assumed it would be fine. She said it wasn't a drop-in centre. I was shocked. If you can't breast-feed in a doctor's surgery where can you?'
But practice manager Len Young said: 'The nurse asked her which doctor she was registered with, and she said she was not with the surgery. 'The nurse responded that she did not know if she should be using the facilities from a health and safety point of view.'
Source
GREEN ENERGY FIASCO: BRITAIN IS SET TO LOSE NEARLY HALF OF ITS ELECTRIVITY
Every day we hear that Britain is facing a 'fuel crisis'. The world oil price breaks records every week. The cost of petrol and gas soars. Foreign suppliers of gas and oil are holding Britain to ransom and charging exorbitant prices. The average family, we are told, faces fuel bills of 1,500 pounds a year. Yet all this pales into insignificance compared with the real energy crisis roaring down on Britain with the speed of a bullet train as, within six or seven years, we stand to lose 40 per cent of all our existing electricity-generating capacity.
Thanks to decades of neglect and wishful thinking by successive governments - and now the devastating impact of a directive from Brussels - we are about to see 17 of our major power stations forced to close, leaving us with a massive shortfall.
Even after 2010, the experts say our power stations cannot be guaranteed to provide us with a continuous supply, meaning that we face the possibility of power cuts far worse than those which recently - largely unreported - blacked out half-a-million homes. By 2015, when the power stations which meet two-fifths of our current electricity needs have gone out of business, we could be facing the most serious disruption to our power supplies since the 'three-day week' of the 1970s.
But the impact of such power cuts on the Britain of today would be far more damaging than they were in the time of Edward Heath 35 years ago. Compared with then, our dependence on continuous electricity supplies is infinitely greater - thanks, above all, to our reliance on computers. We are no longer talking just about factories shutting down or lighting our homes with candles. Without computers, our entire economy would grind to a halt. Scarcely an office, shop, bank or hospital in the land would be able to function. Our railway system would be immobilised. Road traffic would be in chaos as traffic lights ceased to operate and petrol stations closed down. Yet this is the scale of the catastrophe which may be facing us, thanks to the failure of government to give Britain a proper energy policy.
Scaremongering? Just look at the hard facts. At the moment, to meet Britain's peak electricity demand, our power stations need to provide a minimum 56 gigawatts (GW) of capacity. Ten gigawatts, nearly a fifth, comes from our ageing nuclear power stations, all but one of which are so old that over the next few years they will have reached the end of their useful working life. On top of that, however, we shall also have to shut down nine more major power stations - six coal-fired, three oil-fired - forced to close by the crippling cost of complying with an EU anti-pollution law, the so-called Large Combustion Plants directive. This will take out another 13GW of capacity, bringing the total shortfall to 22GW - a staggering 40 per cent of the 56GW we have today.
Waking up at last to the scale of the abyss that is yawning before us, our Government - not least Prime Minister Gordon Brown - has realised the only way to avert this disaster must be to build as fast as possible at least 20 new power stations, gasfired, coal-fired or nuclear.
Part of the cause of this crisis was that, for more than two decades, we went for gas-fired power stations, in the days when we still had abundant supplies of cheap gas from the North Sea. But that is fast running out. Within 12 years, we shall have to import 80 per cent of our gas, at a time when world prices are soaring - and it would be folly to become over-dependent for our energy on countries as politically unreliable as Mr Putin's Russia, where gas is produced.
Building new coal-fired stations might have made more sense if we hadn't closed down most of our own coal industry, and if this didn't now involve the colossal extra costs imposed by the new EU rules. As we saw from the recent response to a proposed new coal-fired plant in Kent, any mention of coal-burning has the green lobby screaming up the wall.
As the Government itself has belatedly recognised, by far the most sensible way to try to fill the gap would be to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. But how on earth is this to be done? There are only a handful of companies equipped to build these nuclear power plants, and countries all over the world are queuing up to place their own orders. Until October 2006, the British Government itself owned one such firm, Westinghouse, but in an act of supreme folly we sold it to Toshiba in Japan for a knockdown 2.8 billion - and it has 19 new orders on its books already.
Our best hope, it seems, is the state-owned French company EDF (ElectricitÈ de France), which has recently been bidding to buy British Energy, owner of almost all our existing nuclear power stations. These would provide the most obvious sites on which to build new ones.
France, of course, went for nuclear energy in a big way just when we were retreating from it - having been world leader for 20 years - and currently derives 80 per cent of its electricity from 58 nuclear power stations. But with such a worldwide demand for new nuclear power, what chance is there that even EDF could provide enough reactors to meet our needs, when building each new one might take ten years or more?
Yet another reason why we have allowed this mindbogglingly serious crisis to creep up on us has been the obsession of those who rule us - both in London and in Brussels - with 'renewable' energy. Incredibly, we are 'obliged' by the EU, within 12 years, to generate no less than 38 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources - such as tens of thousands of wind turbines - when currently only 4 per cent comes from renewables, with wind farms providing barely 1 per cent. As our Government privately recognises, we have no hope of achieving even a fraction of that target (we would anyway need to build a mass of new conventional power stations simply to supply back-up when the wind is not blowing).
Whichever way it is looked at, Britain is threatened by what, thanks to years of dereliction and misjudgment, has become arguably our most serious potential crisis of modern times. Politically, the blame for this astounding mess lies in all directions - with the Tories, with Labour, with Brussels, with those smugly shortsighted 'environmentalists'. But all that matters now is that we put the need to avert this disaster right at the top of our national political agenda. We need to get on with solving as terrifying a problem as our politicians have ever faced.
Source
Another British security bungle: "One of Britain's top intelligence officials left a file with secret documents about Iraq and al-Qaeda on a train, in an embarrassing government security breach that was exposed today. A passenger found the orange folder on a train and handed it in to the BBC, which said it contained top secret documents on Iraq and al-Qaeda. The Cabinet Office, the central government department that supports the work of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, acknowledged the incident and said it had called in a police investigation. "The documents were secret. They were in the possession of a senior intelligence official who works in the Cabinet Office. They were lost on a train," a Cabinet Office spokesman said. "They were retrieved by a member of the public who handed them to the BBC," he said. "When the official realised what had happened, he reported it immediately to the Cabinet Office. We called the police in and they launched an investigation."
Jeremy Clarkson on the Prius: "Wikipedia says the Toyota Prius looks like and performs like a normal car but delivers 50% better fuel economy. That's not true. A Prius doesn't look or perform like a normal car and it will do only 45mpg - far, far less than you'd get from a Golf diesel, say. I harbour a belief, founded on an admittedly limited grasp of science, that if you removed the electric motor and the batteries from a Toyota Prius, you'd save so much weight that it would become more economical and therefore even kinder to the environment. But saving polar bears, of course, is not the point of a hybrid car. The point is not to save the planet but to be seen trying. I saw a Prius in California the other day with the registration plate "Hug Life" and that's what the car does. It says to other road users, "Hey. I've spent a lot of money on this flimsy p.o.s. and I'm chewing a lot of fuel too. But I'm making a green statement."
"Bed & Breakfast" hosts hit by EU directive on pets: "Cats, dogs and other household pets are about to be banished from the kitchens of Britain's 20,000 B&Bs. No longer will hosts be able to prepare a farmhouse fry-up for their guests while the family labrador snoozes in a basket by the Aga. B&B owners, who already complain of being overburdened by regulation, now face the enforcement by health inspectors of a European Union directive banning animals from food preparation areas. In response many are thinking of closing their doors to guests at a time when the domestic holiday market is booming. The EU directive became law in 2006 but its effects are only now filtering through. The regulations apply to all food preparation areas, regardless of size. Those finding it hardest to adapt to the new rules are farmhouse B&Bs, where guests are put up in the family home and treated to a freshly cooked breakfast in the owner's kitchen.
The workshy British are losing out to migrants: "Low-skilled British workers are losing to foreign migrants in the jobs market because they are unemployable and lack the motivation to work, according to a government report published yesterday. The arrival of an estimated one million Eastern European migrants had not increased unemployment among native Britons or lowered their wages, according to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) study. While migrants from the eight former Soviet bloc states that joined the EU in 2004 found it easy to find work, Britons encountered difficulties because of "issues around basic employability skills, incentives and motivation". [I doubt if there would be any Australians surprised by this]
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Good enough for you, but not for the Benns
Comment from Peter Hitchens
The great infuriating unpunished scandal of socialist school hypocrisy never ceases. They take for themselves what they deny to others, just like the old Kremlin Politburo. And they have no shame about it. The late Caroline Benn, wife of Tony, was the most fervent campaigner for comprehensive schools in Britain. Mr Benn - consistent with his principles - withdrew his two sons from their private school to send them to a comprehensive. One of those sons, Stephen, then tried to become a Labour councillor and worked for the fanatically egalitarian Inner London Education Authority.
He married Nita Clarke, another career Leftist (one-time Press officer for Glenys Kinnock, later a Blair adviser at Downing Street). Now we find that their 18-year-old daughter, Emily, has been attending... selective grammar schools. These are the schools her family opposed for decades. Labour still hates them so much that its last Education Act (backed by the Useless Tories) banned the creation of any more.
Apparently unbothered by this ridiculous contrast between her private advantage and her public views, Emily Benn is now trying to become a Labour MP. `I care more about the people that aren't in grammar schools,' she trills. I bet she does.
Source
Labour 'has failed state pupils' despite investing billions of pounds in schools
Billions of pounds spent on state schools has failed to give parents greater choice over their children's education, a report claimed today. Instead of funding new school places, ministers have spent the money propping up under-performing primaries and secondaries. Despite Labour promises to harness 'parent power' to drive up standards, places at good schools are decided by rigid catchment areas and admissions lotteries, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Many pupils are forced to accept the schools they are given because the Government allows councils to maintain only tiny numbers of spare places. And this lack of competition for places has allowed poorer schools to survive.
The damning verdict emerged as ministers prepare to unveil a blueprint to force the country's 638 lowest-performing schools to shape up or face closure. Some schools face immediate intervention amid concerns they have been allowed to fail for too long. The IFS researchers found the schools budget exceeded 40billion pounds in 2006-07 - up from less than 30billion in 1998-99. But billions have been channelled into keeping open poorly performing schools, while a 9billion school refurbishment fund will be concentrated on existing schools rather than giving new providers a foothold in the education system. Meanwhile only half the extra money intended to help disadvantaged pupils is actually spent on them - 3,670 at primary level against 5,950 allocated. The rest is wasted on bureaucracy or given to schools that are already well-funded.
The report, funded by independent education provider the CfBT Education Trust, says ministers must be prepared to allow surplus places to give parents and pupils a real choice. 'The Government's wish to encourage a diversity of school providers is undermined by a funding regime which, with a view to controlling costs, aims to avoid creating surplus places,' said Neil McIntosh, CfBT chief executive, in a foreword to the report.
The report claims that Tony Blair's vision for increased parental is far from being realised. 'The current system does not live up to the 'school choice' programme enthusiastically described in the 2005 White Paper, in which successful schools expand, new entrants compete with existing providers, and weaker schools either improve their performance or else contract and close,' it says. The report also found that the worst-performing primary schools were still 93 per cent full and the worst secondaries 89 per cent full. 'Schools that are all-but-guaranteed to fill their capacity, facing little or no threat of entry from new providers even if their performance is below the national average, do not face sharp incentives to improve their performance,' it said.
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: 'We have made it easier for anyone, including parents, to set up new schools and by law, local authorities have a duty to encourage new providers to come into the system.
Source
Like a gold coin on a dunghill, the truth about the EU
Comment from Peter Hitchens in Britain
Amid the silly soap opera that now passes for British politics, in which we are supposed to care more about hairstyles and mannerisms than about the country, there was one moment last week when a decent man said something important
The brief flash of truth shone out like a gold coin on a dunghill. The man was Peter Lilley, older and wiser than when he used to sing daft songs to Tory conferences. Mr Lilley looks to me as if, like several others, he is trapped in the Unconservative Party and would blossom like an irrigated desert if only he could escape from it.
Because what he said was important, there have been far too few reports of it. Hansard for Tuesday, June 3, at 3.35pm, will give you the details, if you want them. But his clear, hard message was that 80 per cent of our laws are now made in Brussels, and Parliament has no power to reject or amend them. If you wonder why our Post Offices are all closing, it's thanks to an EU directive. So is the increasingly hated Data Protection Act. So are Home Improvement Packs and fortnightly bin collections. In 15 years' time our Parliament will have only two functions left - to raise taxes and declare war - admittedly things that our current politicians are rather keen on.
Mr Lilley's mischievous suggestion is that MPs' pay should be cut each time they hand over authority to others. Incredibly, many MPs don't know what is going on. If they ended up on the wages paid to district councillors - which is all they really are now - they might care more. His own stark words cannot be improved upon: `Few voters, or even members of this house, fully realise how many powers have been, or are about to be, transferred elsewhere. There are three reasons for this.
'The first is that governments of all persuasions deny that any significant powers are being transferred. The second is that, once powers have been transferred, Ministers engage in a charade of pretence that they still retain those powers. Even when introducing measures that they are obliged to bring in as a result of an EU directive they behave as though the initiative were their own. `Indeed, Ministers often end up nobly accepting responsibility for laws that they actually opposed when they were being negotiated in Brussels.'
So now you know. Not since Dunkirk, 68 years ago, has our national independence been so imperilled. But back then, we could see the danger. Now most of us pretend it isn't there.
Source
British council killjoys warn children of dangers of crabbing - the CRABS get distressed
When fishing for crabs, you'd be silly not to think about health and safety. After all, those pincers could give the unsuspecting finger a nasty surprise. But on the seawalls and quaysides around Wells, North Norfolk, this summer, the welfare concerns are all about the crabs. As the schoolchildren head down to the seashore with their hooks, lines and buckets to see what they can catch, experts say they should pack a leaflet on crustacean care too.
About 10,000 leaflets will be handed out this weekend, following investigations by Cambridge University students, which revealed that overcrowding crabs in buckets could cause stress for the smaller ones and lead to fights.
Fishermen say children are sensible enough to work this out for themselves - and don't believe the leaflets are necessary. But nature organisations say the creatures' welfare is a real concern. The guide explains to youngsters how to look after any captives without causing them undue distress. Instructions include:
* Keeping only ten crabs or fewer in a bucket at a time;
* Holding the captives in seawater - and changing the water every hour;
* Making sure your bucket isn't in direct sunlight.
Graduate Will Pearse explained: 'We are not saying people shouldn't go crabbing, which is fun. But there are concerns at the way in which they are treated. We want people to learn about crabs and understand their captive needs. If you are going to spend the day with something that is naturally beautiful then show it some respect.
'One of the main problems is that people put too many crabs in a bucket which results in some at the bottom asphyxiating through lack of oxygen in the water and males damaging each other in fights. In the sea males grapple with each other and the weaker one retreats. But they cannot run away in a bucket and keep fighting, leading to limbs being torn off or shed as a defence mechanism.'
However, local fishermen were not won over. John Davies, of Wells, said: 'Caring for crabs is a good message to send out, but this could be a little over the top. 'The crabs the youngsters catch are tiny and much more resilient than the edible ones we catch. Shore crabs are pretty indestructible. And I think most children look after them well. Youngsters get hours of fun out of it.'
Mike Richards, 44, of Cromer, Norfolk, said: 'Kids who catch crabs with a hook and line are generally pretty sensible and don't overcrowd or boil the crabs alive in the sun so this leaflet is a waste of time.'
Fifty miles along the coast, at Walberswick, Suffolk, the organisers of the British Open Crabbing Championships were quite taken aback by the guidance. David Webb said: 'It does seem rather extraordinary that they are having to do this. They must treat crabs more harshly in Norfolk. 'Here when we hold the championship we insist on a maximum of two crabs in a bucket.' Last year's winner, Oscar Kane, eight, from Kent, caught a crab of almost 6oz.
The leaflets, paid for by the Norfolk Coast Partnership and the Wells Fields Study Centre, may ensure the safety of the local crabs. But if you're uneasy about the fate of others, worry not: The scheme may well nip into neighbouring resorts soon.
Source
NHS in England spends 400 pounds less per patient than Scotland as 'health apartheid' widens
Scots have 400 pounds more of taxpayers' money per head for health and social care than the English. Official figures showed yesterday that the difference between NHS and social spending on the two sides of the border means everyone in Scotland has 20 per cent extra. This means Scots have more hospital beds, a higher ratio of GPs to patients and more qualified clinical staff in their health service.
The report from the Office for National Statistics said that total expenditure on health and personal social services during 2006-07 in England was 1,915 pounds for each person. In Scotland the figure was 2,313. Scots also have on average 16 per cent more to spend per head on NHS drugs than the English. The cost of their prescription drugs is on average 191.40 a year compared with 164.40 in England.
This form of 'health apartheid' means Scots are routinely prescribed drugs on the NHS that are not available free across the border.
The illustration of the scale of the gap in health spending between England and Scotland was set out in a volume of health statistics published by the Government yesterday. It comes amid growing tension over the way public money is directed towards Scotland. Tory leader David Cameron has promised to tackle the 'West Lothian question', the system that allows Scots MPs to have a say on NHS and social spending in England while English MPs have no equivalent input on Scottish affairs.
Concern has centred on the way that key NHS drugs - to treat conditions such as Alzheimer's and lung cancer - are available on the NHS in Scotland but not in England. The number of hospital beds available for Scottish and English patients is also affected. There were 3.5 daily hospital beds for every 1,000 people in England in 2006, the analysis showed, but 5.6 in Scotland.
The ONS warned that 'comparisons between countries have to be treated with caution because of differences in the classification of services'. However officials confirmed that health and social spending in England in 2006-07 was lower than in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
The publication of the figures triggered calls to correct the imbalance in spending between England and Scotland and for a revision of the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula was the system developed in the 1970s under which Scots received 1,500 pounds a year more each of taxpayers' money to compensate for not getting devolution.
Jill Kirby, of the think-tank Centre for Policy Studies, said: 'These figures confirm that we have a two-tier health system and that the English are on the wrong side of the bargain.
Source
Comment from Peter Hitchens
The great infuriating unpunished scandal of socialist school hypocrisy never ceases. They take for themselves what they deny to others, just like the old Kremlin Politburo. And they have no shame about it. The late Caroline Benn, wife of Tony, was the most fervent campaigner for comprehensive schools in Britain. Mr Benn - consistent with his principles - withdrew his two sons from their private school to send them to a comprehensive. One of those sons, Stephen, then tried to become a Labour councillor and worked for the fanatically egalitarian Inner London Education Authority.
He married Nita Clarke, another career Leftist (one-time Press officer for Glenys Kinnock, later a Blair adviser at Downing Street). Now we find that their 18-year-old daughter, Emily, has been attending... selective grammar schools. These are the schools her family opposed for decades. Labour still hates them so much that its last Education Act (backed by the Useless Tories) banned the creation of any more.
Apparently unbothered by this ridiculous contrast between her private advantage and her public views, Emily Benn is now trying to become a Labour MP. `I care more about the people that aren't in grammar schools,' she trills. I bet she does.
Source
Labour 'has failed state pupils' despite investing billions of pounds in schools
Billions of pounds spent on state schools has failed to give parents greater choice over their children's education, a report claimed today. Instead of funding new school places, ministers have spent the money propping up under-performing primaries and secondaries. Despite Labour promises to harness 'parent power' to drive up standards, places at good schools are decided by rigid catchment areas and admissions lotteries, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Many pupils are forced to accept the schools they are given because the Government allows councils to maintain only tiny numbers of spare places. And this lack of competition for places has allowed poorer schools to survive.
The damning verdict emerged as ministers prepare to unveil a blueprint to force the country's 638 lowest-performing schools to shape up or face closure. Some schools face immediate intervention amid concerns they have been allowed to fail for too long. The IFS researchers found the schools budget exceeded 40billion pounds in 2006-07 - up from less than 30billion in 1998-99. But billions have been channelled into keeping open poorly performing schools, while a 9billion school refurbishment fund will be concentrated on existing schools rather than giving new providers a foothold in the education system. Meanwhile only half the extra money intended to help disadvantaged pupils is actually spent on them - 3,670 at primary level against 5,950 allocated. The rest is wasted on bureaucracy or given to schools that are already well-funded.
The report, funded by independent education provider the CfBT Education Trust, says ministers must be prepared to allow surplus places to give parents and pupils a real choice. 'The Government's wish to encourage a diversity of school providers is undermined by a funding regime which, with a view to controlling costs, aims to avoid creating surplus places,' said Neil McIntosh, CfBT chief executive, in a foreword to the report.
The report claims that Tony Blair's vision for increased parental is far from being realised. 'The current system does not live up to the 'school choice' programme enthusiastically described in the 2005 White Paper, in which successful schools expand, new entrants compete with existing providers, and weaker schools either improve their performance or else contract and close,' it says. The report also found that the worst-performing primary schools were still 93 per cent full and the worst secondaries 89 per cent full. 'Schools that are all-but-guaranteed to fill their capacity, facing little or no threat of entry from new providers even if their performance is below the national average, do not face sharp incentives to improve their performance,' it said.
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: 'We have made it easier for anyone, including parents, to set up new schools and by law, local authorities have a duty to encourage new providers to come into the system.
Source
Like a gold coin on a dunghill, the truth about the EU
Comment from Peter Hitchens in Britain
Amid the silly soap opera that now passes for British politics, in which we are supposed to care more about hairstyles and mannerisms than about the country, there was one moment last week when a decent man said something important
The brief flash of truth shone out like a gold coin on a dunghill. The man was Peter Lilley, older and wiser than when he used to sing daft songs to Tory conferences. Mr Lilley looks to me as if, like several others, he is trapped in the Unconservative Party and would blossom like an irrigated desert if only he could escape from it.
Because what he said was important, there have been far too few reports of it. Hansard for Tuesday, June 3, at 3.35pm, will give you the details, if you want them. But his clear, hard message was that 80 per cent of our laws are now made in Brussels, and Parliament has no power to reject or amend them. If you wonder why our Post Offices are all closing, it's thanks to an EU directive. So is the increasingly hated Data Protection Act. So are Home Improvement Packs and fortnightly bin collections. In 15 years' time our Parliament will have only two functions left - to raise taxes and declare war - admittedly things that our current politicians are rather keen on.
Mr Lilley's mischievous suggestion is that MPs' pay should be cut each time they hand over authority to others. Incredibly, many MPs don't know what is going on. If they ended up on the wages paid to district councillors - which is all they really are now - they might care more. His own stark words cannot be improved upon: `Few voters, or even members of this house, fully realise how many powers have been, or are about to be, transferred elsewhere. There are three reasons for this.
'The first is that governments of all persuasions deny that any significant powers are being transferred. The second is that, once powers have been transferred, Ministers engage in a charade of pretence that they still retain those powers. Even when introducing measures that they are obliged to bring in as a result of an EU directive they behave as though the initiative were their own. `Indeed, Ministers often end up nobly accepting responsibility for laws that they actually opposed when they were being negotiated in Brussels.'
So now you know. Not since Dunkirk, 68 years ago, has our national independence been so imperilled. But back then, we could see the danger. Now most of us pretend it isn't there.
Source
British council killjoys warn children of dangers of crabbing - the CRABS get distressed
When fishing for crabs, you'd be silly not to think about health and safety. After all, those pincers could give the unsuspecting finger a nasty surprise. But on the seawalls and quaysides around Wells, North Norfolk, this summer, the welfare concerns are all about the crabs. As the schoolchildren head down to the seashore with their hooks, lines and buckets to see what they can catch, experts say they should pack a leaflet on crustacean care too.
About 10,000 leaflets will be handed out this weekend, following investigations by Cambridge University students, which revealed that overcrowding crabs in buckets could cause stress for the smaller ones and lead to fights.
Fishermen say children are sensible enough to work this out for themselves - and don't believe the leaflets are necessary. But nature organisations say the creatures' welfare is a real concern. The guide explains to youngsters how to look after any captives without causing them undue distress. Instructions include:
* Keeping only ten crabs or fewer in a bucket at a time;
* Holding the captives in seawater - and changing the water every hour;
* Making sure your bucket isn't in direct sunlight.
Graduate Will Pearse explained: 'We are not saying people shouldn't go crabbing, which is fun. But there are concerns at the way in which they are treated. We want people to learn about crabs and understand their captive needs. If you are going to spend the day with something that is naturally beautiful then show it some respect.
'One of the main problems is that people put too many crabs in a bucket which results in some at the bottom asphyxiating through lack of oxygen in the water and males damaging each other in fights. In the sea males grapple with each other and the weaker one retreats. But they cannot run away in a bucket and keep fighting, leading to limbs being torn off or shed as a defence mechanism.'
However, local fishermen were not won over. John Davies, of Wells, said: 'Caring for crabs is a good message to send out, but this could be a little over the top. 'The crabs the youngsters catch are tiny and much more resilient than the edible ones we catch. Shore crabs are pretty indestructible. And I think most children look after them well. Youngsters get hours of fun out of it.'
Mike Richards, 44, of Cromer, Norfolk, said: 'Kids who catch crabs with a hook and line are generally pretty sensible and don't overcrowd or boil the crabs alive in the sun so this leaflet is a waste of time.'
Fifty miles along the coast, at Walberswick, Suffolk, the organisers of the British Open Crabbing Championships were quite taken aback by the guidance. David Webb said: 'It does seem rather extraordinary that they are having to do this. They must treat crabs more harshly in Norfolk. 'Here when we hold the championship we insist on a maximum of two crabs in a bucket.' Last year's winner, Oscar Kane, eight, from Kent, caught a crab of almost 6oz.
The leaflets, paid for by the Norfolk Coast Partnership and the Wells Fields Study Centre, may ensure the safety of the local crabs. But if you're uneasy about the fate of others, worry not: The scheme may well nip into neighbouring resorts soon.
Source
NHS in England spends 400 pounds less per patient than Scotland as 'health apartheid' widens
Scots have 400 pounds more of taxpayers' money per head for health and social care than the English. Official figures showed yesterday that the difference between NHS and social spending on the two sides of the border means everyone in Scotland has 20 per cent extra. This means Scots have more hospital beds, a higher ratio of GPs to patients and more qualified clinical staff in their health service.
The report from the Office for National Statistics said that total expenditure on health and personal social services during 2006-07 in England was 1,915 pounds for each person. In Scotland the figure was 2,313. Scots also have on average 16 per cent more to spend per head on NHS drugs than the English. The cost of their prescription drugs is on average 191.40 a year compared with 164.40 in England.
This form of 'health apartheid' means Scots are routinely prescribed drugs on the NHS that are not available free across the border.
The illustration of the scale of the gap in health spending between England and Scotland was set out in a volume of health statistics published by the Government yesterday. It comes amid growing tension over the way public money is directed towards Scotland. Tory leader David Cameron has promised to tackle the 'West Lothian question', the system that allows Scots MPs to have a say on NHS and social spending in England while English MPs have no equivalent input on Scottish affairs.
Concern has centred on the way that key NHS drugs - to treat conditions such as Alzheimer's and lung cancer - are available on the NHS in Scotland but not in England. The number of hospital beds available for Scottish and English patients is also affected. There were 3.5 daily hospital beds for every 1,000 people in England in 2006, the analysis showed, but 5.6 in Scotland.
The ONS warned that 'comparisons between countries have to be treated with caution because of differences in the classification of services'. However officials confirmed that health and social spending in England in 2006-07 was lower than in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
The publication of the figures triggered calls to correct the imbalance in spending between England and Scotland and for a revision of the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula was the system developed in the 1970s under which Scots received 1,500 pounds a year more each of taxpayers' money to compensate for not getting devolution.
Jill Kirby, of the think-tank Centre for Policy Studies, said: 'These figures confirm that we have a two-tier health system and that the English are on the wrong side of the bargain.
Source
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Another victim of NHS pennypinching: 'I was told I was too young for a smear test but now I am dying of cervical cancer at just 24'
Twice Katie asked for a smear test, but was told she was 'too young' to need one. Now 24, she is dying from cervical cancer, one of many young women who have fallen victim to a scandalous change in health policy.
One year ago Katie Hilliard was a typical 20-something - working in the City, going out with friends from university and generally just having fun. But the 24-year-old now has cervical cancer and despite a hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the disease has spread to her lymph nodes and lungs. Doctors have given Katie at best two years; at worst 11 months. 'They have not been very positive about the future,' she says simply.
What makes her story even more tragic is that cervical cancer, if detected early, is a preventable disease. In fact, Katie had actually requested a smear test - used to detect the pre-cancerous cell changes linked to the disease - twice in the four years before her diagnosis. Yet each time she was refused, because she was 'too young'. Too young to be eligible for a smear test, though not too young to contract cervical cancer.
She says: 'If I'd had a smear test when I was 21, all of this could have been avoided.' Instead, Katie is now undergoing more chemotherapy and is desperately researching alternative ways of fighting the cancer. She is in a lot of pain and has trouble walking. 'I feel old before my time, but I want to live. I'm not going to give up,' she says. 'I wanted to have children and buy a house, but getting a mortgage is now impossible,' says the insurance broker from Haywards Heath, West Sussex.
She and her fiance still plan to marry this October, and she has had her eggs saved in the hope that she goes into remission. 'Some days I'm really hopeful, other days I don't know how I'm going to do this. This should never have happened. I am too young to be dealing with this. 'It is something that a simple smear test should have sorted out.'
Like Katie, Claire Everett, 22, a married mother-of-one, is terminally ill with cervical cancer. She has no doubt that a smear test 'would have made all the difference'. An otherwise healthy young woman, when she developed worrying symptoms (an unusual discharge) last year she immediately went to the doctor; the cancer was diagnosed and initially chemotherapy and radiation were thought to have been successful. Yet last summer, two months after the treatment finished, Claire was told the disease had spread through her pelvis and the cancer was now incurable.
'My mum was crying her eyes out,' she recalls. 'She asked if the cancer was terminal and I walked out of the room. Sometimes I think that if I ignore bad news, it's not happening. 'My initial thought was not for me, but for Alex, my little boy, who's two. The thought that I might not see him grow up broke my heart.'
Both Katie and Claire had fallen foul of a recent change in government health policy. Until a few years ago, all women in the UK were offered regular screening for cervical cancer from the age of 20; then in 2004 the screening age in England was raised to 25 (it remains at 20 in Scotland and Wales). This was because the risk of cervical cancer in younger women was thought to be negligible. But experts believe this change in policy means the condition could go undiagnosed while it is still highly treatable. It was 'a very poor decision', says Professor John Shepherd, surgeon and gynaecological oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital in London. 'Approximately 10 per cent of patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer are women aged 30 or younger, and these numbers are likely to increase.' ...
Screening at 25 is far too late, says Professor Shepherd. He believes women should ideally have their first smear test as soon as they become sexually active and certainly no later than the age of 20. This is in line with America, where screening begins at 20 or within three years of first sexual contact - whichever comes earlier. In other countries, such as Australia, screening begins at 18.
'I think it is inappropriate in 2008 that the NHS screening programme in England does not acknowledge and thus protect young women who are sexually active before they reach the age of 25,' says Pamela Morton, director of the cervical cancer charity Jo's Trust. 'Frankly, it's disgraceful.' ...
Quite what impact the decision to postpone the screening age to 25 has on cervical cancer rates won't be known until the figures become available around 2010. But Professor Shepherd is clear: 'I appreciate that there is a health economics issue here - it will cost money to screen younger women - but I still think it should be a priority. 'Cervical cancer is a preventable disease and catching it early will save lives.'
More here
Equality has made dunces of British children
The bid to iron out differences by imposing one kind of school, one class and one syllabus has been tragically wrong
Education, education, education? For shame, for shame, for shame. New Labour's failure to rescue state education, let alone improve it, will be its most disgraceful legacy. The Conservatives should not crow; when in office they also failed to take on the forces destroying education.
Each week the news is full of reports of stagnating standards, more university dropouts (one in seven students, despite government "investment" of 1 billion pounds since 2003), a shortage of teachers, particularly in maths and science, and a majority of underqualified teachers. However, two dismal stories stood out last week, both as symptom and explanation of what is wrong.
One of the three leading universities in the country, Imperial College London, announced that in 2010 it would introduce an entrance exam for applicants because it cannot rely on A-level results. Sir Richard Sykes, the college's rector, suggested that grade inflation in A-levels made them almost "worthless" as a way of choosing between candidates: "Everybody who applies has got three or four As."
That is hardly surprising, since it isn't difficult to get an A; last year 25% of all A-level papers were given a grade A. Oddly enough, there are people in the education world who still deny that A-levels and GCSEs have been debased. They must be wilfully blind to the evidence; last week, for instance, many newspapers printed a comparison of an old maths O-level exam paper with the contemporary GCSE one. The fall from rigour was lamentable.
Also last week, Professor John White of the notoriously progressive Institute of Education told us that traditional lessons were too middle class. Instead, he said, schools should teach skills such as "energy saving and civic responsibility" through "theme or project-based learning".
At a conference on the national curriculum he argued that while private schools historically focused on the classics and elementary schools for the working classes concentrated on the three Rs, middle-class schools taught academic subjects such as English, science, history, geography, modern languages and Latin as "mere stepping stones to wealth" via university, which "fed [sic] into the idea of academic learning as the mark of a well-heeled middle class".
This, he feels, was the basis of the Conservatives' attempt to impose middle-class values by introducing a national curriculum of traditional subjects in 1988. Subject-based education like this, he thinks, favours the middle class and alienates many children, especially the disadvantaged. White specialises in the philosophy of education and, readers may be irritated to know, was recently a member of a committee set up to advise ministers on the secondary school curriculum.
It is hard to say which of these two stories is more infuriating. The rector of Imperial College is right. Contemporary A-level results, debased as they are, reveal little about a student's suitability for serious study at a top university, but they never did, even at their most rigorous. When I was a teenager, top marks at A-level, although difficult to achieve, were considered irrelevant to getting into Oxford or Cambridge. Passes at A-level were required but what mattered were the entrance exams that both universities set. These were much harder than A-levels - and different.
It was considered at the time too obvious to mention that this was suitable only for the brightest academic children. All this was hard for teenagers who couldn't get into Oxbridge and automatically excluded gifted children from poor schools and deprived backgrounds.
However, if you want a world-class university, attended by students who are not only bright but also well prepared for study as undergraduates, with a well stocked memory and well trained habits of thinking, reading and writing, there is no substitute for selection, however harsh.
At 18, sadly, it makes little difference why a particular teenager is not a good candidate - whether her bog-standard comp or her family or her natural ability failed her. It is not the proper role of a university to do anything about any of that - for one thing it is too late. It's not the role of a university to experiment with social engineering, although the government forces it on them. It's not the role of a university to offer remedial teaching, although plenty do. Maddening though it is to see people reinventing the wheel, Imperial College is right.
So too, oddly enough, is the infuriating White, at least in one way. Beneath his old-fashioned class hatred and his atavistic loyalty to discredited progressive teaching, lurks an awkward truth. An academic school education - a traditional grammar school education - is not suitable for most people.
It was never a good idea to impose a grammar school-style curriculum on all children in the state sector and subject them to it in large, mixed-ability classes. That served neither the few who were suited to it, nor the many who were not. It has indeed alienated the disadvantaged. Plenty of them would be better served, as White says, by practical vocational subjects. That was the vision of the old secondary moderns and the technical colleges. Can it be that the progressive White is trying to reinvent this regressive wheel?
Behind the rector's story and the professor's story lies the obstinate folly of generations of teachers and theorists of education. Obsessed with equality and social engineering, they refused to recognise the simple truth that children and students vary. Children are born with different abilities, into different environments, which exaggerate those differences: ignoring those differences is no way to help them all, nor is clumsy social engineering.
Imposing one kind of school, one class and one syllabus on everyone, in an attempt to iron out those differences, has been tragically wrong. Encouraging everyone to think they can get a university degree is unforgivably discouraging to the majority of young people who can't and don't.
The result has been a school system that suits almost nobody and public exams that mean almost nothing. As these two stories demonstrate, quality has been sacrificed to the pursuit of equality. It is shameful.
Source
Two British destroyers sail minus missiles to save cash: "Two Royal Navy destroyers have been sent to sea virtually defenceless against air attack after their guided missiles were removed to save money. The Sea Dart missiles, which have a range of 40 miles, used to protect HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton against enemy planes and missiles. Now 4.5inch guns give them their main protection. At least half a dozen sailors - who operated the surface-to-air missiles - have been transferred to other ships because their roles became defunct. Last night, the decision to deny the Type 42 destroyers the missiles was criticised by defence experts. Rear Admiral David Bawtree, the former commander of Portsmouth Naval Base, said: 'It is surprising that the destroyers are sailing without their primary defence, though I would add they still have lesser gun defences."
Bungling British bureaucracy again: "A policeman died yesterday after being shot with live ammunition during a routine training exercise in a disused warehouse. There were reports that officers were mistakenly issued with real bullets instead of blanks. PC Ian Terry, 32, was hit in the chest by a single blast from a shotgun fired by a fellow officer. The shooting happened at 11.35am yesterday in Manchester at a huge warehouse which used to be a distribution centre for electronics giant Sharp. The married officer suffered horrendous chest wounds during the Greater Manchester Police training exercise and was pronounced dead in hospital. Police sources said that the officers should have been issued with blank rounds for the exercise instead of live ammunition. One senior source said: 'All hell has broken out here and no one can understand how this dreadful mix-up has happened."
Twice Katie asked for a smear test, but was told she was 'too young' to need one. Now 24, she is dying from cervical cancer, one of many young women who have fallen victim to a scandalous change in health policy.
One year ago Katie Hilliard was a typical 20-something - working in the City, going out with friends from university and generally just having fun. But the 24-year-old now has cervical cancer and despite a hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the disease has spread to her lymph nodes and lungs. Doctors have given Katie at best two years; at worst 11 months. 'They have not been very positive about the future,' she says simply.
What makes her story even more tragic is that cervical cancer, if detected early, is a preventable disease. In fact, Katie had actually requested a smear test - used to detect the pre-cancerous cell changes linked to the disease - twice in the four years before her diagnosis. Yet each time she was refused, because she was 'too young'. Too young to be eligible for a smear test, though not too young to contract cervical cancer.
She says: 'If I'd had a smear test when I was 21, all of this could have been avoided.' Instead, Katie is now undergoing more chemotherapy and is desperately researching alternative ways of fighting the cancer. She is in a lot of pain and has trouble walking. 'I feel old before my time, but I want to live. I'm not going to give up,' she says. 'I wanted to have children and buy a house, but getting a mortgage is now impossible,' says the insurance broker from Haywards Heath, West Sussex.
She and her fiance still plan to marry this October, and she has had her eggs saved in the hope that she goes into remission. 'Some days I'm really hopeful, other days I don't know how I'm going to do this. This should never have happened. I am too young to be dealing with this. 'It is something that a simple smear test should have sorted out.'
Like Katie, Claire Everett, 22, a married mother-of-one, is terminally ill with cervical cancer. She has no doubt that a smear test 'would have made all the difference'. An otherwise healthy young woman, when she developed worrying symptoms (an unusual discharge) last year she immediately went to the doctor; the cancer was diagnosed and initially chemotherapy and radiation were thought to have been successful. Yet last summer, two months after the treatment finished, Claire was told the disease had spread through her pelvis and the cancer was now incurable.
'My mum was crying her eyes out,' she recalls. 'She asked if the cancer was terminal and I walked out of the room. Sometimes I think that if I ignore bad news, it's not happening. 'My initial thought was not for me, but for Alex, my little boy, who's two. The thought that I might not see him grow up broke my heart.'
Both Katie and Claire had fallen foul of a recent change in government health policy. Until a few years ago, all women in the UK were offered regular screening for cervical cancer from the age of 20; then in 2004 the screening age in England was raised to 25 (it remains at 20 in Scotland and Wales). This was because the risk of cervical cancer in younger women was thought to be negligible. But experts believe this change in policy means the condition could go undiagnosed while it is still highly treatable. It was 'a very poor decision', says Professor John Shepherd, surgeon and gynaecological oncologist at The Royal Marsden Hospital in London. 'Approximately 10 per cent of patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer are women aged 30 or younger, and these numbers are likely to increase.' ...
Screening at 25 is far too late, says Professor Shepherd. He believes women should ideally have their first smear test as soon as they become sexually active and certainly no later than the age of 20. This is in line with America, where screening begins at 20 or within three years of first sexual contact - whichever comes earlier. In other countries, such as Australia, screening begins at 18.
'I think it is inappropriate in 2008 that the NHS screening programme in England does not acknowledge and thus protect young women who are sexually active before they reach the age of 25,' says Pamela Morton, director of the cervical cancer charity Jo's Trust. 'Frankly, it's disgraceful.' ...
Quite what impact the decision to postpone the screening age to 25 has on cervical cancer rates won't be known until the figures become available around 2010. But Professor Shepherd is clear: 'I appreciate that there is a health economics issue here - it will cost money to screen younger women - but I still think it should be a priority. 'Cervical cancer is a preventable disease and catching it early will save lives.'
More here
Equality has made dunces of British children
The bid to iron out differences by imposing one kind of school, one class and one syllabus has been tragically wrong
Education, education, education? For shame, for shame, for shame. New Labour's failure to rescue state education, let alone improve it, will be its most disgraceful legacy. The Conservatives should not crow; when in office they also failed to take on the forces destroying education.
Each week the news is full of reports of stagnating standards, more university dropouts (one in seven students, despite government "investment" of 1 billion pounds since 2003), a shortage of teachers, particularly in maths and science, and a majority of underqualified teachers. However, two dismal stories stood out last week, both as symptom and explanation of what is wrong.
One of the three leading universities in the country, Imperial College London, announced that in 2010 it would introduce an entrance exam for applicants because it cannot rely on A-level results. Sir Richard Sykes, the college's rector, suggested that grade inflation in A-levels made them almost "worthless" as a way of choosing between candidates: "Everybody who applies has got three or four As."
That is hardly surprising, since it isn't difficult to get an A; last year 25% of all A-level papers were given a grade A. Oddly enough, there are people in the education world who still deny that A-levels and GCSEs have been debased. They must be wilfully blind to the evidence; last week, for instance, many newspapers printed a comparison of an old maths O-level exam paper with the contemporary GCSE one. The fall from rigour was lamentable.
Also last week, Professor John White of the notoriously progressive Institute of Education told us that traditional lessons were too middle class. Instead, he said, schools should teach skills such as "energy saving and civic responsibility" through "theme or project-based learning".
At a conference on the national curriculum he argued that while private schools historically focused on the classics and elementary schools for the working classes concentrated on the three Rs, middle-class schools taught academic subjects such as English, science, history, geography, modern languages and Latin as "mere stepping stones to wealth" via university, which "fed [sic] into the idea of academic learning as the mark of a well-heeled middle class".
This, he feels, was the basis of the Conservatives' attempt to impose middle-class values by introducing a national curriculum of traditional subjects in 1988. Subject-based education like this, he thinks, favours the middle class and alienates many children, especially the disadvantaged. White specialises in the philosophy of education and, readers may be irritated to know, was recently a member of a committee set up to advise ministers on the secondary school curriculum.
It is hard to say which of these two stories is more infuriating. The rector of Imperial College is right. Contemporary A-level results, debased as they are, reveal little about a student's suitability for serious study at a top university, but they never did, even at their most rigorous. When I was a teenager, top marks at A-level, although difficult to achieve, were considered irrelevant to getting into Oxford or Cambridge. Passes at A-level were required but what mattered were the entrance exams that both universities set. These were much harder than A-levels - and different.
It was considered at the time too obvious to mention that this was suitable only for the brightest academic children. All this was hard for teenagers who couldn't get into Oxbridge and automatically excluded gifted children from poor schools and deprived backgrounds.
However, if you want a world-class university, attended by students who are not only bright but also well prepared for study as undergraduates, with a well stocked memory and well trained habits of thinking, reading and writing, there is no substitute for selection, however harsh.
At 18, sadly, it makes little difference why a particular teenager is not a good candidate - whether her bog-standard comp or her family or her natural ability failed her. It is not the proper role of a university to do anything about any of that - for one thing it is too late. It's not the role of a university to experiment with social engineering, although the government forces it on them. It's not the role of a university to offer remedial teaching, although plenty do. Maddening though it is to see people reinventing the wheel, Imperial College is right.
So too, oddly enough, is the infuriating White, at least in one way. Beneath his old-fashioned class hatred and his atavistic loyalty to discredited progressive teaching, lurks an awkward truth. An academic school education - a traditional grammar school education - is not suitable for most people.
It was never a good idea to impose a grammar school-style curriculum on all children in the state sector and subject them to it in large, mixed-ability classes. That served neither the few who were suited to it, nor the many who were not. It has indeed alienated the disadvantaged. Plenty of them would be better served, as White says, by practical vocational subjects. That was the vision of the old secondary moderns and the technical colleges. Can it be that the progressive White is trying to reinvent this regressive wheel?
Behind the rector's story and the professor's story lies the obstinate folly of generations of teachers and theorists of education. Obsessed with equality and social engineering, they refused to recognise the simple truth that children and students vary. Children are born with different abilities, into different environments, which exaggerate those differences: ignoring those differences is no way to help them all, nor is clumsy social engineering.
Imposing one kind of school, one class and one syllabus on everyone, in an attempt to iron out those differences, has been tragically wrong. Encouraging everyone to think they can get a university degree is unforgivably discouraging to the majority of young people who can't and don't.
The result has been a school system that suits almost nobody and public exams that mean almost nothing. As these two stories demonstrate, quality has been sacrificed to the pursuit of equality. It is shameful.
Source
Two British destroyers sail minus missiles to save cash: "Two Royal Navy destroyers have been sent to sea virtually defenceless against air attack after their guided missiles were removed to save money. The Sea Dart missiles, which have a range of 40 miles, used to protect HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton against enemy planes and missiles. Now 4.5inch guns give them their main protection. At least half a dozen sailors - who operated the surface-to-air missiles - have been transferred to other ships because their roles became defunct. Last night, the decision to deny the Type 42 destroyers the missiles was criticised by defence experts. Rear Admiral David Bawtree, the former commander of Portsmouth Naval Base, said: 'It is surprising that the destroyers are sailing without their primary defence, though I would add they still have lesser gun defences."
Bungling British bureaucracy again: "A policeman died yesterday after being shot with live ammunition during a routine training exercise in a disused warehouse. There were reports that officers were mistakenly issued with real bullets instead of blanks. PC Ian Terry, 32, was hit in the chest by a single blast from a shotgun fired by a fellow officer. The shooting happened at 11.35am yesterday in Manchester at a huge warehouse which used to be a distribution centre for electronics giant Sharp. The married officer suffered horrendous chest wounds during the Greater Manchester Police training exercise and was pronounced dead in hospital. Police sources said that the officers should have been issued with blank rounds for the exercise instead of live ammunition. One senior source said: 'All hell has broken out here and no one can understand how this dreadful mix-up has happened."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Why `deradicalisation' is not the answer
It's time BritGov realised that Islamist extremism is not a `foreign' invader of Britain, but rather springs from Britain's own bankrupt culture
On Tuesday, the British home secretary, Jacqui Smith, announced the development of a nationwide `deradicalisation' programme to tackle people who have supposedly been drawn into violent Islamist extremism in Britain. Muslim community groups and councils will be allocated o12.5million, in addition to the o40million the government has already committed to the `prevent' element of the national counterterrorism strategy made public in July 2006. The funding will be used for projects that will `challenge and resist' the ideas and outlooks deemed to have informed recent acts of terror in the UK.
This strategy will fail for the simple reason that the government has yet to fully appreciate what the influences are that they seek to alter. In addition, officials have no idea as to what it is they would wish to alter them to.
The simplistic model that emerged in the aftermath of 9/11 was that the West was confronted by a resurgent form of political Islam emanating from the Middle East and further afield. Subsequent events, including the London bombings on 7 July 2005, led to an almost begrudging recognition that many of the perpetrators of terrorism had been educated in the West, if not born there.
This still allowed for the possibility that their ideas were largely foreign in origin, or that their outlooks were alien to the presumed norms prevailing in the West. Hence the continuing focus on the form that these ideas take - couched in their jihadist rhetoric - or appeals to defending an ill-defined sense of `our values' or `our way of life'. The UK government has failed to confront the true content of what these ideas expressed: a rejection of all things Western, rather than a positive affirmation of anything else.
Nor has the government offered an alternative vision of what we stand for as a society, beyond rhetorical references to freedom and democracy. However, the espousal of such values jars with current proposals to extend the period that alleged terrorists may be held without charge (from 28 to 42 days) - from a prime minister, Gordon Brown, who was never elected by the people.
The truth is that the sources of self-styled Islamist terrorism are more likely to be found within our own shores and within our own communities as anywhere else. It may be more likely, for now, that British Asians will act upon these ideas - with the benefit of an enhanced sense of victimhood that they may have picked up within the British education system. But as the steadily increasing number of white faces appearing on the counterterrorism radar suggests, this need not necessarily be true for much longer.
If this sounds rather harsh, let me illustrate what I mean by way of an example. A good friend of mine recently spent a day in the law faculty of a prestigious British university. The distinguished professor she spent time with advised her that nowadays students are not the same as they once were. They were no longer expected to read numerous books, write long essays or memorise case law. Rather, they are presented with handouts of Powerpoint presentations to read and they keep a weblog of their activities.
That evening, my friend attended the Islamic society meeting in the same university. There, she encountered many of the same students she had met earlier in the day (when they had been disinterestedly sending texts on their mobile phones during the law seminars). Now, however, the students appeared eager to learn. The cleric who ran the meeting expected them to recall specific lines from the Koran and to be familiar with all aspects of Islamic jurisprudence.
Maybe somebody should ask Jacqui Smith who here is the `radicalising' influence? Is it the foreign mullah who ran the evening class, demanding attention and commanding respect, or was it the jaded Western intellectual who deep down believes that there is no truth that can be taught, that not too much should be expected of young people nowadays, and who in any case would not wish to damage their `self-esteem' through challenging them in class?
I use this vignette to suggest that the roots of so-called `radicalisation' are much wider and deeper than can be addressed by a prejudicially targeted programme focusing on ill-founded notions as to where such ideas might emanate from. Indeed, rather than targeting Muslim communities and monitoring Islamic society meetings, the authorities would be better off observing and monitoring their own contemporary culture.
Far from there being a layer of vulnerable young Muslims who are preyed upon by various hotheads, what we find, time and again, are passionate, intelligent and energetic individuals who somehow fail to find any meaning or purpose to their lives from within the confines of contemporary Western culture. Most of these are neither disconnected nor alienated from society, and rather than being `radicalised' from the outside, they actively look for something to join. Nick Reilly, the supposed simpleton whose rudimentary device exploded in his face recently in Exeter, is proof that it is almost impossible to `recruit' anyone of note into terrorism.
In short: a few, fairly intelligent people, deprived of a sense of purpose, will go looking for answers in radical Islam. These are Western people looking for some alternatives to the bankrupt intellectual and political culture around them. Those who are apparently `recruited', on the other hand, are mostly idiots.
In focusing on so-called `extremists' and `radicals', the authorities and security agencies manage to miss that which lies right under their nose. What's worse, the very language they use belies their own difficulty. By accusing someone of being `extreme' or `radical', they effectively give up on any attempt to address the content of what people supposedly believe, targeting instead the extent to which they are held to believe it. This is like saying, `I don't care what it is you believe in, so long as it is not too much', which in its turn is an admission that they themselves believe in nothing.
At a talk given to the Smith Institute in London on the evening of her announcement regarding the proposed `deredicalisation' programme, Jacqui Smith suggested that `lacking a positive vision, al-Qaeda can only define itself by what it opposes'. Talk of projecting yourself on to others! She and her cronies would be better off outlining what kind of Britain it is that they do want to live in, rather than obsessing over a handful of dangerous idiots whose ideas and outlooks would seem entirely unimpressive were it not for the vacuum that they confront.
Source
British Universities `inflate degrees' to boost status
UNIVERSITY academics claim they are under pressure to upgrade degrees to at least a 2:1 to boost their institutions' position in league tables. Liverpool was named as one of the alleged culprits by one leading academic, while another senior don claims league tables were "a key factor" in increasing the numbers of firsts and 2:1s awarded at one of Britain's top 10 universities.
Other lecturers said they were also coming under strong pressure to upgrade degrees from students paying tuition fees who were worried that their career prospects would be blighted if they failed to achieve a 2:1.
Jonathan Bate, professor of English at Warwick University, said that before he left his previous job at Liverpool in 2003 he was told that improving the university's league table position depended on increasing the number of firsts and upper second class degrees awarded.
In The Sunday Times University Guide league table about 10% of a university's score depends on its proportion of top degrees. Rankings can have a strong effect on, for example, the calibre of applicants to universities.
Bate, speaking in today's News Review, says: "There are universities where instructions go round to staff reminding them that awarding more top-class degrees will push their institution up both the national and international league tables. When I was a professor at Liverpool University heads of departments were given exactly this message."
Universities have complained repeatedly about "grade inflation" at A-level making it increasingly difficult to choose between candidates with three As, but new figures show that the same phenomenon has occurred with degrees. At Liverpool the proportion of firsts and 2:1s has risen from 50% to 73% during the past decade. Since 2000, the university's ranking has risen from 35th to 27th.
In the past decade only one of the top 30 universities - Cambridge - has reduced the proportion of firsts and 2:1s. Liverpool University denied pressure had been exerted to lower marking standards. Bill Rammell, the higher education minister, has warned universities against introducing "tests for tests' sake" in case they harm the prospects of pupils from poor schools.
Source
DAVID BELLAMY: CARING FOR THE EARTH
After half a century of campaigning, botanist David Bellamy still believes the answer lies in the soil, discovers Peter Elson
ONCE upon a time, botanist Dr David Bellamy was all over our television screens, like a rash of the invasive fungi he so often enthused about. He was in that flock of eccentric telly egg-heads (such as Dr Magnus Pike), plucked from their natural academic habitat, hired to round up vast herds of untamed mainstream viewers, previously untempted by a diet of hard science. But like the formerly prolific house sparrow, Dr Bellamy, aged 75, is also now a relatively rare sighting. Luckily, keen boffin-watchers without binoculars can view him at close-quarters as the Cheshire Show's special guest, later this month.
Can we blame his scarcity on global warming? Well, yes, indirectly, he says. More shockingly, he believes an appearance on children's magazine Blue Peter killed his small screen career. "I stopped a Welsh windfarm on Blue Peter in 1996 and I've not been on television since. Also, it was rumoured my stance on having an anti-EU referendum was unpopular with TV bosses," he mutters. "If that's true, it's a very bad sign for democracy in this country."
He claims to have "smelt a rat" when the BBC sacked one of its top journalists, Julian Pettifer, for being president of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. "Also Julian Pettifer made a wonderful programme about the effect of farmed salmon on wild salmon and he was publicly sacked," he alleges. "From this moment on the BBC became a pusher of global warming. I'm proud to be a global warming heretic, because the theory's wrong.
"If you wanted to show Al Gore's anti-global warming film An Inconvenient Truth, by law you have to give the other side now. How many teachers know what to tell the children to balance the 35 mistakes in this film?"
Global warming theory has never been tested and is based on a series of computer models, he says. "Since 1998 there has been no rise in the average temperature of the world, although we pour 44 giga-tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "There are now three times more polar bears in the world than 20 years ago when I was working in the Arctic, yet the US Senate has given them special protection."
But he concurs with the World Wildlife Fund's new report that a third of all species face extinction. "We've overfished the world and completely screwed up 2% of the world's soil. The main reason for species extinction is habitat destruction," he splutters.
More here
British attack on family doctors
Doctors’ leaders who oppose the creation of GP “super-surgeries” are echoing their predecessors who likened the establishment of the NHS to Nazi Germany, Alan Johnson says today. The Health Secretary launches an attack on the British Medical Association and the Conservative Party, accusing them of reprising their “infamous double act” when they opposed the health service 60 years ago.
In an interview with The Times Mr Johnson indicated that he is preparing to change funding rules this month to make it harder for single-handed GP practices to survive. He accuses David Cameron of a political gaffe in siding with GPs’ leaders against reforms that, he says, will improve access to doctors, particularly in poorer areas, and allow them to provide better care.
The Government is braced for a battle with both the BMA and the Tories, who say that 1,700 GP surgeries may have to close as a result of the drive to group family doctors into new super-surgeries. The BMA will intensify efforts this week to mobilise patients to oppose the changes with a planned march on Parliament. Critics say that the centres, some of which will be run by companies, may be more expensive, less efficient and force patients to travel farther. But Mr Johnson justifies the reforms, saying that they would reduce health inequalities and increase the ability of the NHS to screen for disease, as well as increase patients’ choice and access while reducing pressure on hospitals.
“This is all additional capacity, it’s additional money, it’s not closing a single GP surgery anywhere in the country. We will not be railroading patients to go to these centres,” he insists. He says there is confusion between polyclinics - health centres designed to bring a wide range of hospital services closer to communities - and GP-led health centres, or super-surgeries. The former were recommended by Lord Darzi of Denham in his review of London healthcare. Mr Johnson said he welcomed a report by the King’s Fund, the health think-tank, that said the polyclinic model should not be imposed in the rest of the country. The imposition of super-surgeries is a direct threat to existing services, particularly single-handed practices, however. And while Mr Johnson insists GPs are still in control he confirms he is preparing to remove a payment - the minimum practice income guarantee (MPIG) - designed to protect GPs operating alone. “MPIG is a barrier to all sorts of things we want to do,” Mr Johnson says.
He accuses his opponents of scare-mongering when they suggest that it could lead to mass closures. “The ludicrous misrepresentation of this policy by the BMA and the Conservative Party is a faint echo of their infamous double act 60 years ago when they opposed the creation of the NHS itself,” he will say in a speech today. Speaking before his address to the IPPR think-tank, Mr Johnson says that he is struck by the similarity of some of the criticisms, particularly the charge that the Attlee Government wanted to make all doctors employees of the state. “There’s a quote from the then leader of the BMA who said: ‘I’ve looked at this very carefully and it reminds me of national socialism as practised in Germany.’”
In an interview with The Times in April Mr Cameron accused the Government of trying to abolish “the family doctor service”. “Communities which have lost their post office, their local shops and their local police station, are now going to lose their doctor,” he said. But Mr Johnson says that the Tory leader has made a “huge political gaffe” in siding with the “producer interest”. “We’ve got world-class primary care but the levels of patients who express concerns about access is large and is growing all the time.”
Laurence Buckman, chairman of the BMA’s GP committee, said that he “did not want to rise” to some of Mr Johnson’s direct criticisms of the BMA, but added: “This Government has thrown away the goodwill and trust of 45,000 doctors, which now they will never get back.” He said that the association was not against phasing out the MPIG in principle, but gave warning that as many as one in ten practices could close if the Government did not provide alternative funding arrangements. “Just over 90 per cent of practices receive some income from the MPIG, and their dependency varies, but without it about 10 per cent of practices will be financially nonviable,” he said. “There’s a fairly even distribution of these, which doesn’t just affect one particular group of doctors or patients, so practices will close in rather arbitrary fashion all over the country.”
Dr Buckman added that it was likely that “a few hundred” small practices would have to close as a result of having to merge into or compete with larger polyclinics or health centres. “No one but the Government has pushed for these reforms, which have puzzled patients and GPs alike,” he added. “It will destabilise the system unnecessarily and seems to be an enormous waste of taxpayers’ money.”
Nick Goodwin, from the King’s Fund think-tank, said: “Primary care trusts must ensure contracts are water-tight and ensure no patient groups or conditions become excluded in the drive for profits. If we are going to bring in private companies, regulation and accreditation needs to be spot on, otherwise they will take us to the cleaners.”
Source
It's time BritGov realised that Islamist extremism is not a `foreign' invader of Britain, but rather springs from Britain's own bankrupt culture
On Tuesday, the British home secretary, Jacqui Smith, announced the development of a nationwide `deradicalisation' programme to tackle people who have supposedly been drawn into violent Islamist extremism in Britain. Muslim community groups and councils will be allocated o12.5million, in addition to the o40million the government has already committed to the `prevent' element of the national counterterrorism strategy made public in July 2006. The funding will be used for projects that will `challenge and resist' the ideas and outlooks deemed to have informed recent acts of terror in the UK.
This strategy will fail for the simple reason that the government has yet to fully appreciate what the influences are that they seek to alter. In addition, officials have no idea as to what it is they would wish to alter them to.
The simplistic model that emerged in the aftermath of 9/11 was that the West was confronted by a resurgent form of political Islam emanating from the Middle East and further afield. Subsequent events, including the London bombings on 7 July 2005, led to an almost begrudging recognition that many of the perpetrators of terrorism had been educated in the West, if not born there.
This still allowed for the possibility that their ideas were largely foreign in origin, or that their outlooks were alien to the presumed norms prevailing in the West. Hence the continuing focus on the form that these ideas take - couched in their jihadist rhetoric - or appeals to defending an ill-defined sense of `our values' or `our way of life'. The UK government has failed to confront the true content of what these ideas expressed: a rejection of all things Western, rather than a positive affirmation of anything else.
Nor has the government offered an alternative vision of what we stand for as a society, beyond rhetorical references to freedom and democracy. However, the espousal of such values jars with current proposals to extend the period that alleged terrorists may be held without charge (from 28 to 42 days) - from a prime minister, Gordon Brown, who was never elected by the people.
The truth is that the sources of self-styled Islamist terrorism are more likely to be found within our own shores and within our own communities as anywhere else. It may be more likely, for now, that British Asians will act upon these ideas - with the benefit of an enhanced sense of victimhood that they may have picked up within the British education system. But as the steadily increasing number of white faces appearing on the counterterrorism radar suggests, this need not necessarily be true for much longer.
If this sounds rather harsh, let me illustrate what I mean by way of an example. A good friend of mine recently spent a day in the law faculty of a prestigious British university. The distinguished professor she spent time with advised her that nowadays students are not the same as they once were. They were no longer expected to read numerous books, write long essays or memorise case law. Rather, they are presented with handouts of Powerpoint presentations to read and they keep a weblog of their activities.
That evening, my friend attended the Islamic society meeting in the same university. There, she encountered many of the same students she had met earlier in the day (when they had been disinterestedly sending texts on their mobile phones during the law seminars). Now, however, the students appeared eager to learn. The cleric who ran the meeting expected them to recall specific lines from the Koran and to be familiar with all aspects of Islamic jurisprudence.
Maybe somebody should ask Jacqui Smith who here is the `radicalising' influence? Is it the foreign mullah who ran the evening class, demanding attention and commanding respect, or was it the jaded Western intellectual who deep down believes that there is no truth that can be taught, that not too much should be expected of young people nowadays, and who in any case would not wish to damage their `self-esteem' through challenging them in class?
I use this vignette to suggest that the roots of so-called `radicalisation' are much wider and deeper than can be addressed by a prejudicially targeted programme focusing on ill-founded notions as to where such ideas might emanate from. Indeed, rather than targeting Muslim communities and monitoring Islamic society meetings, the authorities would be better off observing and monitoring their own contemporary culture.
Far from there being a layer of vulnerable young Muslims who are preyed upon by various hotheads, what we find, time and again, are passionate, intelligent and energetic individuals who somehow fail to find any meaning or purpose to their lives from within the confines of contemporary Western culture. Most of these are neither disconnected nor alienated from society, and rather than being `radicalised' from the outside, they actively look for something to join. Nick Reilly, the supposed simpleton whose rudimentary device exploded in his face recently in Exeter, is proof that it is almost impossible to `recruit' anyone of note into terrorism.
In short: a few, fairly intelligent people, deprived of a sense of purpose, will go looking for answers in radical Islam. These are Western people looking for some alternatives to the bankrupt intellectual and political culture around them. Those who are apparently `recruited', on the other hand, are mostly idiots.
In focusing on so-called `extremists' and `radicals', the authorities and security agencies manage to miss that which lies right under their nose. What's worse, the very language they use belies their own difficulty. By accusing someone of being `extreme' or `radical', they effectively give up on any attempt to address the content of what people supposedly believe, targeting instead the extent to which they are held to believe it. This is like saying, `I don't care what it is you believe in, so long as it is not too much', which in its turn is an admission that they themselves believe in nothing.
At a talk given to the Smith Institute in London on the evening of her announcement regarding the proposed `deredicalisation' programme, Jacqui Smith suggested that `lacking a positive vision, al-Qaeda can only define itself by what it opposes'. Talk of projecting yourself on to others! She and her cronies would be better off outlining what kind of Britain it is that they do want to live in, rather than obsessing over a handful of dangerous idiots whose ideas and outlooks would seem entirely unimpressive were it not for the vacuum that they confront.
Source
British Universities `inflate degrees' to boost status
UNIVERSITY academics claim they are under pressure to upgrade degrees to at least a 2:1 to boost their institutions' position in league tables. Liverpool was named as one of the alleged culprits by one leading academic, while another senior don claims league tables were "a key factor" in increasing the numbers of firsts and 2:1s awarded at one of Britain's top 10 universities.
Other lecturers said they were also coming under strong pressure to upgrade degrees from students paying tuition fees who were worried that their career prospects would be blighted if they failed to achieve a 2:1.
Jonathan Bate, professor of English at Warwick University, said that before he left his previous job at Liverpool in 2003 he was told that improving the university's league table position depended on increasing the number of firsts and upper second class degrees awarded.
In The Sunday Times University Guide league table about 10% of a university's score depends on its proportion of top degrees. Rankings can have a strong effect on, for example, the calibre of applicants to universities.
Bate, speaking in today's News Review, says: "There are universities where instructions go round to staff reminding them that awarding more top-class degrees will push their institution up both the national and international league tables. When I was a professor at Liverpool University heads of departments were given exactly this message."
Universities have complained repeatedly about "grade inflation" at A-level making it increasingly difficult to choose between candidates with three As, but new figures show that the same phenomenon has occurred with degrees. At Liverpool the proportion of firsts and 2:1s has risen from 50% to 73% during the past decade. Since 2000, the university's ranking has risen from 35th to 27th.
In the past decade only one of the top 30 universities - Cambridge - has reduced the proportion of firsts and 2:1s. Liverpool University denied pressure had been exerted to lower marking standards. Bill Rammell, the higher education minister, has warned universities against introducing "tests for tests' sake" in case they harm the prospects of pupils from poor schools.
Source
DAVID BELLAMY: CARING FOR THE EARTH
After half a century of campaigning, botanist David Bellamy still believes the answer lies in the soil, discovers Peter Elson
ONCE upon a time, botanist Dr David Bellamy was all over our television screens, like a rash of the invasive fungi he so often enthused about. He was in that flock of eccentric telly egg-heads (such as Dr Magnus Pike), plucked from their natural academic habitat, hired to round up vast herds of untamed mainstream viewers, previously untempted by a diet of hard science. But like the formerly prolific house sparrow, Dr Bellamy, aged 75, is also now a relatively rare sighting. Luckily, keen boffin-watchers without binoculars can view him at close-quarters as the Cheshire Show's special guest, later this month.
Can we blame his scarcity on global warming? Well, yes, indirectly, he says. More shockingly, he believes an appearance on children's magazine Blue Peter killed his small screen career. "I stopped a Welsh windfarm on Blue Peter in 1996 and I've not been on television since. Also, it was rumoured my stance on having an anti-EU referendum was unpopular with TV bosses," he mutters. "If that's true, it's a very bad sign for democracy in this country."
He claims to have "smelt a rat" when the BBC sacked one of its top journalists, Julian Pettifer, for being president of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. "Also Julian Pettifer made a wonderful programme about the effect of farmed salmon on wild salmon and he was publicly sacked," he alleges. "From this moment on the BBC became a pusher of global warming. I'm proud to be a global warming heretic, because the theory's wrong.
"If you wanted to show Al Gore's anti-global warming film An Inconvenient Truth, by law you have to give the other side now. How many teachers know what to tell the children to balance the 35 mistakes in this film?"
Global warming theory has never been tested and is based on a series of computer models, he says. "Since 1998 there has been no rise in the average temperature of the world, although we pour 44 giga-tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "There are now three times more polar bears in the world than 20 years ago when I was working in the Arctic, yet the US Senate has given them special protection."
But he concurs with the World Wildlife Fund's new report that a third of all species face extinction. "We've overfished the world and completely screwed up 2% of the world's soil. The main reason for species extinction is habitat destruction," he splutters.
More here
British attack on family doctors
Doctors’ leaders who oppose the creation of GP “super-surgeries” are echoing their predecessors who likened the establishment of the NHS to Nazi Germany, Alan Johnson says today. The Health Secretary launches an attack on the British Medical Association and the Conservative Party, accusing them of reprising their “infamous double act” when they opposed the health service 60 years ago.
In an interview with The Times Mr Johnson indicated that he is preparing to change funding rules this month to make it harder for single-handed GP practices to survive. He accuses David Cameron of a political gaffe in siding with GPs’ leaders against reforms that, he says, will improve access to doctors, particularly in poorer areas, and allow them to provide better care.
The Government is braced for a battle with both the BMA and the Tories, who say that 1,700 GP surgeries may have to close as a result of the drive to group family doctors into new super-surgeries. The BMA will intensify efforts this week to mobilise patients to oppose the changes with a planned march on Parliament. Critics say that the centres, some of which will be run by companies, may be more expensive, less efficient and force patients to travel farther. But Mr Johnson justifies the reforms, saying that they would reduce health inequalities and increase the ability of the NHS to screen for disease, as well as increase patients’ choice and access while reducing pressure on hospitals.
“This is all additional capacity, it’s additional money, it’s not closing a single GP surgery anywhere in the country. We will not be railroading patients to go to these centres,” he insists. He says there is confusion between polyclinics - health centres designed to bring a wide range of hospital services closer to communities - and GP-led health centres, or super-surgeries. The former were recommended by Lord Darzi of Denham in his review of London healthcare. Mr Johnson said he welcomed a report by the King’s Fund, the health think-tank, that said the polyclinic model should not be imposed in the rest of the country. The imposition of super-surgeries is a direct threat to existing services, particularly single-handed practices, however. And while Mr Johnson insists GPs are still in control he confirms he is preparing to remove a payment - the minimum practice income guarantee (MPIG) - designed to protect GPs operating alone. “MPIG is a barrier to all sorts of things we want to do,” Mr Johnson says.
He accuses his opponents of scare-mongering when they suggest that it could lead to mass closures. “The ludicrous misrepresentation of this policy by the BMA and the Conservative Party is a faint echo of their infamous double act 60 years ago when they opposed the creation of the NHS itself,” he will say in a speech today. Speaking before his address to the IPPR think-tank, Mr Johnson says that he is struck by the similarity of some of the criticisms, particularly the charge that the Attlee Government wanted to make all doctors employees of the state. “There’s a quote from the then leader of the BMA who said: ‘I’ve looked at this very carefully and it reminds me of national socialism as practised in Germany.’”
In an interview with The Times in April Mr Cameron accused the Government of trying to abolish “the family doctor service”. “Communities which have lost their post office, their local shops and their local police station, are now going to lose their doctor,” he said. But Mr Johnson says that the Tory leader has made a “huge political gaffe” in siding with the “producer interest”. “We’ve got world-class primary care but the levels of patients who express concerns about access is large and is growing all the time.”
Laurence Buckman, chairman of the BMA’s GP committee, said that he “did not want to rise” to some of Mr Johnson’s direct criticisms of the BMA, but added: “This Government has thrown away the goodwill and trust of 45,000 doctors, which now they will never get back.” He said that the association was not against phasing out the MPIG in principle, but gave warning that as many as one in ten practices could close if the Government did not provide alternative funding arrangements. “Just over 90 per cent of practices receive some income from the MPIG, and their dependency varies, but without it about 10 per cent of practices will be financially nonviable,” he said. “There’s a fairly even distribution of these, which doesn’t just affect one particular group of doctors or patients, so practices will close in rather arbitrary fashion all over the country.”
Dr Buckman added that it was likely that “a few hundred” small practices would have to close as a result of having to merge into or compete with larger polyclinics or health centres. “No one but the Government has pushed for these reforms, which have puzzled patients and GPs alike,” he added. “It will destabilise the system unnecessarily and seems to be an enormous waste of taxpayers’ money.”
Nick Goodwin, from the King’s Fund think-tank, said: “Primary care trusts must ensure contracts are water-tight and ensure no patient groups or conditions become excluded in the drive for profits. If we are going to bring in private companies, regulation and accreditation needs to be spot on, otherwise they will take us to the cleaners.”
Source
Monday, June 09, 2008
British doctors' anger at socialist cruelty to very ill patients
THE medical establishment is in revolt against Labour’s policy of denying National Health Service treatment to patients who pay privately for cancer medicines. The outcry from eminent consultants and doctors’ leaders came as news emerged of two more patients whose NHS care was removed while they were dying of cancer.
Alan Johnson, the health secretary, faces opposition from the presidents of the Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal College of Surgeons, as well as British Medical Association consultants. Baroness Ilora Finlay, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said the issue went to the heart of the purpose of the health service. “Can we justify spending billions of pounds on the relief of relatively minor conditions and deny patients with life-threatening disease the support of the NHS when they want to bridge the costs themselves?” she said.
Finlay’s intervention, in an article for The Sunday Times, comes after it emerged that a man dying of kidney cancer had to battle for NHS care because his family followed doctors’ advice to pay privately for a drug. John Burrell, a retired financial adviser from the Isle of Wight, died last month aged 63. His daughter, Kate Tasquier, said: “The consultant told my dad he would be billed for all of his treatment such as blood tests and scans. My dad was so worried.” Although she said the NHS eventually compromised on the fees, “he ended up being so scared that he was going to be billed for his care that he was scared to go into hospital and he delayed starting the treatment”.
It also emerged that Sandra Baker, a bowel cancer victim, died last year after being denied NHS treatment in her final months. When she paid 9,500 pounds privately for drugs, she was hit with an extra bill of 16,000 pounds for her treatment. Last week The Sunday Times revealed the case of Linda O’Boyle who died of cancer aged 64 after being denied NHS treatment because she paid for a drug.
Bernard Ribeiro, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, and the annual consultants’ conference of the British Medical Association have also attacked the government’s block on NHS patients paying for additional drugs.
While Johnson insists cancer patients should not be allowed to pay for superior drugs because this would create a two-tier NHS, opposition parties have edged closer to supporting co-payments. Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman who is developing a new party policy on the issue, said: “When a clinician recommends a proposed treatment as having therapeutic value to the patient, it seems cruel and perverse to withdraw all NHS treatment if the patient follows that advice.”
Doctors are concerned that more and more patients will become victims of the policy. Ribeiro said: “I would strongly oppose the denial of life-saving operations to patients based on decisions they had made about how they supplement their NHS care.”
Cancer specialists at one of the country’s largest hospitals have found a way around the ban. About 16 oncologists at University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust write prescriptions for their patients to receive private cancer drugs at home. Professor Nick James, one of the doctors, said: “There is no question of us turning away these patients. I believe that to do so is punitive and vindictive. We remain responsible for the NHS care of these patients.”
Source
Candyfloss garbage men in Britain
And government supports it
Binmen have put two fingers up to common sense by issuing an astonishing warning to council-tax payers. 'If we can't pull your wheelie bin using just two fingers it is too heavy - and won't be emptied.' Bins that need three or more fingers, they claim, constitute a health and safety risk as they could fall from the lorry while being emptied. The edict from binmen is the latest salvo in a continuing battle between householders and bureaucracy.
It comes only days after the Daily Mail reported how widowed pensioner June Kay, 79, had been told to drag a 360-litre wheelie bin more than half a mile down a steep hill if she wanted it emptied.
The two-finger policy was discovered by Katie Shergold in the historic market town of Warminster, Wiltshire. She watched in disbelief as binmen stuck a 'too heavy to move' sticker on her bin of grass cuttings, just 6ft from their lorry. Yet 5ft 4in Mrs Shergold, 26, had wheeled the bin round to the front of her house without any difficulty.
She called West Wiltshire District Council, which confirmed the two-finger test rule. 'It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life,' said Miss Shergold, a health care assistant at Warminster Hospital. 'I work really long hours at the hospital to earn my money, but I have to part with more than 100 pounds each month in council tax. 'It's absolutely disgusting that we're being charged for this service but not receiving anything in return.'
West Wiltshire District Council denied there was an official 'two-finger' policy but admitted its binmen used the test - putting one index finger in each of the bin's handles - to check the weight. It said heavy bins posed a safety threat as they could break the collection truck's hydraulic lifting system, or topple off while they were being emptied, potentially injuring one of the collectors.
Mrs Shergold discovered the two-finger rule because she was at her home in a town centre cul-de-sac when the binmen arrived. She said: 'I was sitting in the living room and saw the binmen having a look at my green bin on the pavement, then tipping it back onto its wheels. 'The next thing I knew, they'd moved on to my neighbour's house and my green bin hadn't been emptied. 'I went outside to see what was going on and there was a sticker on it saying it was too heavy to move.
'I was astonished - I had been able to wheel it out there in the first place very easily. 'If I could move it by myself, these guys certainly could. 'These were big men and it was only 6ft from their lorry and contained nothing but grass, but they just left it there on the pavement. 'I phoned the council to tell them what had happened, but instead of apologising they told me it was normal for binmen to leave bins they couldn't pull with two fingers'.
Mrs Shergold said she eventually took the cuttings to a local tip to stop them rotting in the bin. But she said she and her husband Leigh, 31, were left disgusted by the binmen's attitude - and the response of the council - when they pay 130 pounds in council tax each month. She said: 'If I hadn't taken the grass cuttings to the tip myself they'd still be here outside our windows, stinking to high heaven.'
Nicole Smith, spokesman for West Wiltshire District Council, said: 'Focsa, our waste contractors, are unable to empty wheeled bins that are too heavy, due to the safety risk of the bin falling from the vehicle's lifting gear during emptying. 'If, at any time, a bin is considered by the operatives to be overloaded, a sticker will be placed on the lid letting the householder know that they have been unable to take the bin. 'If any resident has had a 'heavy' sticker left on the bin then they will be required to remove some of the contents for it to be emptied.'
The two-finger edict is the latest in a string of bizarre rulings that have exasperated householders across the country, especially with millions facing sharply rising council tax bills. Pensioner Mrs Kay, who pays more than 2,000 pounds a year in council tax at her home in Bolton by Bowland, Lancashire, now has to make a 25-minute round trip from the main road to drop off her rubbish.
In Plymouth, council officials want families to name somebody as the person in charge of their rubbish. They would then be the one to face 100 pound fines - and potentially a criminal record - if refuse is found in the wrong bins, or the bins are put out too soon or left in the wrong place.
Last month residents in Skipton, North Yorkshire, were told to empty their bins themselves - to reduce the risk of binmen getting injured. Craven District Council officials wrote to thousands of householders asking them to help 'take a lot of the strain out of the job'. The move followed a health and safety review.
Also last month, war veteran Lenny Woodward, 95, was told that binmen would no longer collect his rubbish because he had put a ketchup bottle in the wrong bin. And in April bus driver Gareth Corkhill, 26, from Whitehaven in Cumbria, was fined 210 and given a criminal record because the amount of rubbish in his wheelie bin meant the lid was open by a few inches.
Source
The return of real men
The article below is satirical but perhaps it has to be. Excerpts:
Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn't spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men. Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published. David Thomas tip-toes through the unashamedly macho details. . . Remember, you have a number of qualities, almost all deriving from your testosterone, which women can't help but admire. For example:
1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner's hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever. Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.
2. You can make decisions on your own. You don't need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.
3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.
4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.
How to treat a lady
1. When on a date, you pay - even if she offers. Don't stand for any nonsense about going Dutch. And pay in cash - retrosexuals don't use credit cards.
2. You open doors for women, and you stand for pregnant women on a bus, train or Tube. You do this because you are a man, and you're proud of it.
3. You do not cook anything more sophisticated than Pot Noodles or baked beans. Cooking is her job. But when you have a Sunday roast - and you do, obviously - you carve with manly precision and flair.
4. Women like to talk, bless them. So don't try to stop her getting her feelings off her chest, however daft they might be. There's no need to actually listen, however. Nor does she expect, or even want you to express an opinion of your own. A nod of the head, roughly every 90 seconds, combined with a concerned frown, or a cheery laugh, where appropriate, is perfectly sufficient.
5. Of course, you want to have sex. Afterwards, however, it is important to avoid saying 'I love you' or 'I'm sorry, that's never happened before'.
6. She may be interested in commitment. You are not. It is vitally important that you never even acknowledge the possibility that you are in a relationship. The moment she uses a sentence that includes words such as 'wedding', 'children', or 'meet my parents', make your excuses and leave.
7. No woman ever comes between you and live TV football. Only a very special woman will come between you and the edited highlights on Match Of The Day.
8. There is no woman on Earth for whom you will go to see Sex And The City - The Movie.
Rules of the road
1. Never ask for directions, because you are never, ever lost. You're just taking a little longer than expected to get there.
2. Nor do you require sat-nav.
3. The correct speed for a retrosexual is 5 per cent above the stated limit - at all times.
4. The correct distance between you and the car in front is 3ft.
5. The correct answer to the question 'Should I let another driver cut in ahead of me at a junction?' is: 'Yes, if she's goodlooking.'
6. The only two occasions when it's acceptable to use a horn are: (i) to alert the driver in front when the traffic lights have turned green; (ii) to make a potentially attractive woman turn her face in your direction.
7. Never bother signalling left. Other motorists will always find out soon enough.
Home comforts
Beers in the fridge are all part of a real man's bachelor pad. A Retrosexual does not actually have a home, as such - not unless he has woken up one day to find that he has somehow got married. Of course, he has to have somewhere to live, but he demonstrates his inherent manliness by his absolute indifference to his physical surroundings. So, while he may be forced to acquire chairs, tables, a bed and something to lie on while watching the telly, he pays no attention at all to what they look like.
He may, on the other hand, devote considerable care to choosing his 42in widescreen plasma TV, his DVD recorder and his surround-sound homecinema system.
No Retrosexual ever watches any property based TV show. His notion of a Grand Design is a 6ft high pyramid of beer cans.
He does, however, have a number of possible decorative styles at his fingertips. These include:
MINIMALISM: Nothing in the place but a TV, a bed, a fridge and a pile of clothes on the floor.
MODERNISM: Same as minimalism, only with better TV, more gadgets (serious hi-fi, PC, video games, etc), and a large selection of power-tools.
SHABBY CHIC: In which random styles of furniture, all bought second-hand, are combined to give an eclectic, cluttered charm - or a pigsty, in other words.
The key is to tread a fine line between having such an untidy place that any women would run away, and being so clean and tidy that she questions your virility. If in doubt, do nothing. Bare walls, lightbulbs and an absence of girly soft furnishings (eg. cushions, tablecloths and even curtains) are safe options. And never, ever light any candles.
Source
Breaking Faith With Britain
By MICHAEL NAZIR-ALI
The rapid fragmentation of society, the emergence of isolated communities with only tenuous links to their wider context, and the impact of home-grown terrorism have all led even hard-bitten, pragmatist politicians to ask questions about "Britishness": what is at the core of British identity; how can it be reclaimed, passed on and owned by more and more people?
The answers to these questions cannot be only in terms of the "thin" values, such as respect, tolerance and good behaviour, which are usually served up by those scratching around for something to say. In fact, the answer can only be given after rigorous investigation into the history of nationhood and of the institutions, laws, customs and values which have arisen to sustain and to enhance it. In this connection, as with the rest of Europe, it cannot be gainsaid that the very idea of a unified people under God living in a "golden chain" of social harmony has everything to do with the arrival and flourishing of Christianity in these parts. It is impossible to imagine how else a rabble of mutually hostile tribes, fiefdoms and kingdoms could have become a nation conscious of its identity and able to make an impact on the world. In England, particularly, this consciousness goes back a long way and is reflected, for example, in a national network of care for the poor that was locally based in the parishes and was already in place in the 16th century.
In some ways, I am the least qualified to write about such matters. There have been, and are today, many eminent people in public and academic life who have a far greater claim to reflect on these issues than I have. Perhaps my only justification for even venturing into this field is to be found in Kipling when he wrote, "What should they know of England who only England know?" It may be, then, that to understand the precise relationship of the Christian faith to the public life of this nation, a perspective is helpful which is both rooted in the life of this country and able to look at it from the outside.
As I survey the field, what do I see? I find, first of all, "a descending theme" in terms of Christian influence. That is to say, I find that the systems of governance, of the rule of law, of the assumption of trust in common life all find their inspiration in Scripture; for example, in the Pauline doctrine of the godly magistrate and, ultimately, in the Christian doctrine of God the Holy Trinity, where you have both an ordered relationship and a mutuality of love. As Joan O'Donovan has pointed out, the notion of God's right, or God's justice, produced a network of divine, human and natural law which was the basis of a just ordering of society and also of a mutual sense of obligation "one towards another", as we say at Prayers for the Parliament.
Such a descending theme of influence continues to permeate society, but is especially focused in constitutional arrangements, such as the "Queen in Parliament under God", the Queen's Speech (which always ends with a prayer for Almighty God to bless the counsels of the assembled Parliament), daily prayers in Parliament, the presence of bishops in the House of Lords, the national flag, the national anthem - the list could go on. None of this should be seen as "icing on the cake" or as interesting and tourist-friendly vestigial elements left over from the Middle Ages. They have the purpose of weaving the awareness of God into the body politic of the nation.
In addition to this "descending theme", there is also what we might call the "ascending theme", which comes up from below to animate debate and policy-making in the institutions of state. Much of this has to do with our estimate of the human person and how that affects the business of making law and of governance. Such an estimate goes right back to the rediscovery of Aristotle by Europe - a rediscovery, incidentally, made possible by the work of largely Christian translators in the Islamic world. These translators made Aristotle, and much else besides, available to the Muslims, who used it, commented upon it and passed it on to Western Europe. One of the features of the rediscovery was a further appreciation of the human person as agent by Christian thinkers such as St Thomas Aquinas. They were driven to read the Bible in the light of Aristotle and this had several results which remain important for us today.
One was the discovery of conscience. If the individual is morally and spiritually responsible before God, then we have to think also of how conscience is formed by the Word of God and the Church's proclamation of it so that freedom can be exercised responsibly. Another result was the emergence of the idea that because human beings were moral agents, their consent was needed in the business of governance. It is not enough now simply to draw on notions of God's justice for patterns of government. We need also the consent of the governed who have been made in God's image (a term which comes into the foreground). This dual emphasis on conscience and consent led to people being seen as citizens rather than merely as subjects.
The Reformation also had a view about governance as well as the significance of the individual, which was to prove important for the future. The theme of natural rights was taken up by the Dominicans on the Continent in the context of defending the freedom and the possessions of the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. From there, it influenced prominent thinkers of the moderate Enlightenment in this country, such as John Locke, who were attempting to rethink a Christian basis for society. This was also the context for the Evangelical revival in the 18th century. While the Evangelicals drew inspiration from the Bible for their humanitarian projects, such as the abolition of slavery, universal education and humane conditions of work for men, women and children, the Enlightenment provided them with the intellectual tools and the moral vision of natural rights so that they could argue their case in the public sphere. It was this Evangelical-Enlightenment consensus which brought about the huge social changes of the 19th and early 20th centuries and which came under sustained attack in the second half of the 20th century.
Sociologists of religion have been telling us that the process of secularisation has been a very long one and, indeed, they locate its origin precisely in the Enlightenment's rejection of heteronomous authority and its affirmation of autonomy. Historians, on the other hand, point out that faith flourished in industrial Britain in the 19th century and in the first part of the last century. Indeed, it is possible to say that it continued to prosper well into the 1950s. Was it long-term decline, then, or sudden demise? In fact, there are elements of truth in both approaches. It seems to be the case, however, that something momentous happened in the 1960s which has materially altered the scene: Christ-ianity began to be more and more marginal to the "public doctrine" by which the nation ordered itself, and this state of affairs has continued to the present day.
Many reasons have been given for this situation. Callum Brown has argued that it was the cultural revolution of the 1960s which brought Christianity's role in society to an abrupt and catastrophic end. He notes, particularly, the part played by women in upholding piety and in passing on the faith in the home. It was the loss of this faith and piety among women which caused the steep decline in Christian observance in all sections of society. Peter Mullen and others, similarly, have traced the situation to the student unrest of the 1960s which they claim was inspired by Marxism of one sort or another. The aim was to overturn what I have called the Evangelical-Enlightenment consensus so that revolution might be possible. One of the ingredients in their tactics was to encourage a social and sexual revolution so that a political one would, in due course, come about. Mullen points out that instead of the Churches resisting this phenomenon, liberal theologians and Church leaders all but capitulated to the intellectual and cultural forces of the time.
It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves.
Much more here
UK's trainee maths teachers are bottom of the class when it comes to basic sums
Many trainee maths teachers cannot do basic sums, say researchers. They struggle with reasoning and thinking logically, despite the fact that they will be responsible for passing on these skills to youngsters. Schools across the country are already having trouble recruiting and retaining high quality maths teachers.
The researchers from Plymouth University said it was alarming that so many trainees can get 'very basic' questions wrong. Their study compared English final-year maths teacher trainees with their counterparts in seven other countries. These were China, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Russia and Singapore. All these countries have good reputations for maths education.
The continuing research, which is funded by the Centre for British Teachers, found that only 21 per cent of English trainees correctly answered a question about the chance of picking different sweets out of a bag. This compared with 97 per cent of Russians, 63 per cent of Hungarians and 60 per cent of Chinese maths students. And a simple question about square roots flummoxed half the English trainees but was answered correctly by more than 90 per cent of their Russian, Chinese and Hungarian colleagues.
The English candidates were weak on algebra questions, but they performed well on shape and space questions about trigonometry and geometry and data handling questions covering statistical techniques. Singapore and Japan have yet to provide results.
Professor David Burghes, director of the Centre for Innovation in Mathematics Teaching at Plymouth University, said he was worried by the results, which are being analysed further. He said: 'We are far behind other countries and the international average in terms of logic and rigour. 'That worries me because it almost feels like we have gone for numeracy rather than mathematics in our schools, particularly primaries - and I think mathematics counts.'
The research comes as a report from the Reform think-tank claimed that GCSE maths has become little more than a 'tick box test' in comparison with the old O-level. It called for a major shake-up of the exam system and a reversal of a trend towards splitting exams into bite-size modules.
A National Audit Office report yesterday highlighted the problem of young people leaving school without good skills in literacy and maths. In 2006-07, 45 per cent of pupils leaving school had not gained Level 2 maths (GCSE grades A*-C) and 40 per cent had not achieved Level 2 English.
Source
British socialists don't care about the troops: "A former head of the SAS has quit the army after criticising the government for risking soldiers' lives by failing to fund troops and equipment. Brigadier Ed Butler, one of Britain's most experienced and decorated special forces soldiers, is the most senior of three key commanders to have resigned in the past year amid widespread anger over lack of funding. News of his resignation comes in the same week that General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, called for better treatment for the forces and more money to be spent on defence.... Butler was highly critical of John Reid, then defence secretary, for keeping troop numbers low and of the failure of the Treasury under Gordon Brown to fund equipment. Lieutenant Colonel Rick Williams MC, another commanding officer of the SAS, resigned last July after being criticised by senior officers for spending too much time on the front line with his men".
THE medical establishment is in revolt against Labour’s policy of denying National Health Service treatment to patients who pay privately for cancer medicines. The outcry from eminent consultants and doctors’ leaders came as news emerged of two more patients whose NHS care was removed while they were dying of cancer.
Alan Johnson, the health secretary, faces opposition from the presidents of the Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal College of Surgeons, as well as British Medical Association consultants. Baroness Ilora Finlay, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said the issue went to the heart of the purpose of the health service. “Can we justify spending billions of pounds on the relief of relatively minor conditions and deny patients with life-threatening disease the support of the NHS when they want to bridge the costs themselves?” she said.
Finlay’s intervention, in an article for The Sunday Times, comes after it emerged that a man dying of kidney cancer had to battle for NHS care because his family followed doctors’ advice to pay privately for a drug. John Burrell, a retired financial adviser from the Isle of Wight, died last month aged 63. His daughter, Kate Tasquier, said: “The consultant told my dad he would be billed for all of his treatment such as blood tests and scans. My dad was so worried.” Although she said the NHS eventually compromised on the fees, “he ended up being so scared that he was going to be billed for his care that he was scared to go into hospital and he delayed starting the treatment”.
It also emerged that Sandra Baker, a bowel cancer victim, died last year after being denied NHS treatment in her final months. When she paid 9,500 pounds privately for drugs, she was hit with an extra bill of 16,000 pounds for her treatment. Last week The Sunday Times revealed the case of Linda O’Boyle who died of cancer aged 64 after being denied NHS treatment because she paid for a drug.
Bernard Ribeiro, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, and the annual consultants’ conference of the British Medical Association have also attacked the government’s block on NHS patients paying for additional drugs.
While Johnson insists cancer patients should not be allowed to pay for superior drugs because this would create a two-tier NHS, opposition parties have edged closer to supporting co-payments. Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman who is developing a new party policy on the issue, said: “When a clinician recommends a proposed treatment as having therapeutic value to the patient, it seems cruel and perverse to withdraw all NHS treatment if the patient follows that advice.”
Doctors are concerned that more and more patients will become victims of the policy. Ribeiro said: “I would strongly oppose the denial of life-saving operations to patients based on decisions they had made about how they supplement their NHS care.”
Cancer specialists at one of the country’s largest hospitals have found a way around the ban. About 16 oncologists at University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust write prescriptions for their patients to receive private cancer drugs at home. Professor Nick James, one of the doctors, said: “There is no question of us turning away these patients. I believe that to do so is punitive and vindictive. We remain responsible for the NHS care of these patients.”
Source
Candyfloss garbage men in Britain
And government supports it
Binmen have put two fingers up to common sense by issuing an astonishing warning to council-tax payers. 'If we can't pull your wheelie bin using just two fingers it is too heavy - and won't be emptied.' Bins that need three or more fingers, they claim, constitute a health and safety risk as they could fall from the lorry while being emptied. The edict from binmen is the latest salvo in a continuing battle between householders and bureaucracy.
It comes only days after the Daily Mail reported how widowed pensioner June Kay, 79, had been told to drag a 360-litre wheelie bin more than half a mile down a steep hill if she wanted it emptied.
The two-finger policy was discovered by Katie Shergold in the historic market town of Warminster, Wiltshire. She watched in disbelief as binmen stuck a 'too heavy to move' sticker on her bin of grass cuttings, just 6ft from their lorry. Yet 5ft 4in Mrs Shergold, 26, had wheeled the bin round to the front of her house without any difficulty.
She called West Wiltshire District Council, which confirmed the two-finger test rule. 'It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life,' said Miss Shergold, a health care assistant at Warminster Hospital. 'I work really long hours at the hospital to earn my money, but I have to part with more than 100 pounds each month in council tax. 'It's absolutely disgusting that we're being charged for this service but not receiving anything in return.'
West Wiltshire District Council denied there was an official 'two-finger' policy but admitted its binmen used the test - putting one index finger in each of the bin's handles - to check the weight. It said heavy bins posed a safety threat as they could break the collection truck's hydraulic lifting system, or topple off while they were being emptied, potentially injuring one of the collectors.
Mrs Shergold discovered the two-finger rule because she was at her home in a town centre cul-de-sac when the binmen arrived. She said: 'I was sitting in the living room and saw the binmen having a look at my green bin on the pavement, then tipping it back onto its wheels. 'The next thing I knew, they'd moved on to my neighbour's house and my green bin hadn't been emptied. 'I went outside to see what was going on and there was a sticker on it saying it was too heavy to move.
'I was astonished - I had been able to wheel it out there in the first place very easily. 'If I could move it by myself, these guys certainly could. 'These were big men and it was only 6ft from their lorry and contained nothing but grass, but they just left it there on the pavement. 'I phoned the council to tell them what had happened, but instead of apologising they told me it was normal for binmen to leave bins they couldn't pull with two fingers'.
Mrs Shergold said she eventually took the cuttings to a local tip to stop them rotting in the bin. But she said she and her husband Leigh, 31, were left disgusted by the binmen's attitude - and the response of the council - when they pay 130 pounds in council tax each month. She said: 'If I hadn't taken the grass cuttings to the tip myself they'd still be here outside our windows, stinking to high heaven.'
Nicole Smith, spokesman for West Wiltshire District Council, said: 'Focsa, our waste contractors, are unable to empty wheeled bins that are too heavy, due to the safety risk of the bin falling from the vehicle's lifting gear during emptying. 'If, at any time, a bin is considered by the operatives to be overloaded, a sticker will be placed on the lid letting the householder know that they have been unable to take the bin. 'If any resident has had a 'heavy' sticker left on the bin then they will be required to remove some of the contents for it to be emptied.'
The two-finger edict is the latest in a string of bizarre rulings that have exasperated householders across the country, especially with millions facing sharply rising council tax bills. Pensioner Mrs Kay, who pays more than 2,000 pounds a year in council tax at her home in Bolton by Bowland, Lancashire, now has to make a 25-minute round trip from the main road to drop off her rubbish.
In Plymouth, council officials want families to name somebody as the person in charge of their rubbish. They would then be the one to face 100 pound fines - and potentially a criminal record - if refuse is found in the wrong bins, or the bins are put out too soon or left in the wrong place.
Last month residents in Skipton, North Yorkshire, were told to empty their bins themselves - to reduce the risk of binmen getting injured. Craven District Council officials wrote to thousands of householders asking them to help 'take a lot of the strain out of the job'. The move followed a health and safety review.
Also last month, war veteran Lenny Woodward, 95, was told that binmen would no longer collect his rubbish because he had put a ketchup bottle in the wrong bin. And in April bus driver Gareth Corkhill, 26, from Whitehaven in Cumbria, was fined 210 and given a criminal record because the amount of rubbish in his wheelie bin meant the lid was open by a few inches.
Source
The return of real men
The article below is satirical but perhaps it has to be. Excerpts:
Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn't spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men. Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published. David Thomas tip-toes through the unashamedly macho details. . . Remember, you have a number of qualities, almost all deriving from your testosterone, which women can't help but admire. For example:
1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner's hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever. Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.
2. You can make decisions on your own. You don't need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.
3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.
4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.
How to treat a lady
1. When on a date, you pay - even if she offers. Don't stand for any nonsense about going Dutch. And pay in cash - retrosexuals don't use credit cards.
2. You open doors for women, and you stand for pregnant women on a bus, train or Tube. You do this because you are a man, and you're proud of it.
3. You do not cook anything more sophisticated than Pot Noodles or baked beans. Cooking is her job. But when you have a Sunday roast - and you do, obviously - you carve with manly precision and flair.
4. Women like to talk, bless them. So don't try to stop her getting her feelings off her chest, however daft they might be. There's no need to actually listen, however. Nor does she expect, or even want you to express an opinion of your own. A nod of the head, roughly every 90 seconds, combined with a concerned frown, or a cheery laugh, where appropriate, is perfectly sufficient.
5. Of course, you want to have sex. Afterwards, however, it is important to avoid saying 'I love you' or 'I'm sorry, that's never happened before'.
6. She may be interested in commitment. You are not. It is vitally important that you never even acknowledge the possibility that you are in a relationship. The moment she uses a sentence that includes words such as 'wedding', 'children', or 'meet my parents', make your excuses and leave.
7. No woman ever comes between you and live TV football. Only a very special woman will come between you and the edited highlights on Match Of The Day.
8. There is no woman on Earth for whom you will go to see Sex And The City - The Movie.
Rules of the road
1. Never ask for directions, because you are never, ever lost. You're just taking a little longer than expected to get there.
2. Nor do you require sat-nav.
3. The correct speed for a retrosexual is 5 per cent above the stated limit - at all times.
4. The correct distance between you and the car in front is 3ft.
5. The correct answer to the question 'Should I let another driver cut in ahead of me at a junction?' is: 'Yes, if she's goodlooking.'
6. The only two occasions when it's acceptable to use a horn are: (i) to alert the driver in front when the traffic lights have turned green; (ii) to make a potentially attractive woman turn her face in your direction.
7. Never bother signalling left. Other motorists will always find out soon enough.
Home comforts
Beers in the fridge are all part of a real man's bachelor pad. A Retrosexual does not actually have a home, as such - not unless he has woken up one day to find that he has somehow got married. Of course, he has to have somewhere to live, but he demonstrates his inherent manliness by his absolute indifference to his physical surroundings. So, while he may be forced to acquire chairs, tables, a bed and something to lie on while watching the telly, he pays no attention at all to what they look like.
He may, on the other hand, devote considerable care to choosing his 42in widescreen plasma TV, his DVD recorder and his surround-sound homecinema system.
No Retrosexual ever watches any property based TV show. His notion of a Grand Design is a 6ft high pyramid of beer cans.
He does, however, have a number of possible decorative styles at his fingertips. These include:
MINIMALISM: Nothing in the place but a TV, a bed, a fridge and a pile of clothes on the floor.
MODERNISM: Same as minimalism, only with better TV, more gadgets (serious hi-fi, PC, video games, etc), and a large selection of power-tools.
SHABBY CHIC: In which random styles of furniture, all bought second-hand, are combined to give an eclectic, cluttered charm - or a pigsty, in other words.
The key is to tread a fine line between having such an untidy place that any women would run away, and being so clean and tidy that she questions your virility. If in doubt, do nothing. Bare walls, lightbulbs and an absence of girly soft furnishings (eg. cushions, tablecloths and even curtains) are safe options. And never, ever light any candles.
Source
Breaking Faith With Britain
By MICHAEL NAZIR-ALI
The rapid fragmentation of society, the emergence of isolated communities with only tenuous links to their wider context, and the impact of home-grown terrorism have all led even hard-bitten, pragmatist politicians to ask questions about "Britishness": what is at the core of British identity; how can it be reclaimed, passed on and owned by more and more people?
The answers to these questions cannot be only in terms of the "thin" values, such as respect, tolerance and good behaviour, which are usually served up by those scratching around for something to say. In fact, the answer can only be given after rigorous investigation into the history of nationhood and of the institutions, laws, customs and values which have arisen to sustain and to enhance it. In this connection, as with the rest of Europe, it cannot be gainsaid that the very idea of a unified people under God living in a "golden chain" of social harmony has everything to do with the arrival and flourishing of Christianity in these parts. It is impossible to imagine how else a rabble of mutually hostile tribes, fiefdoms and kingdoms could have become a nation conscious of its identity and able to make an impact on the world. In England, particularly, this consciousness goes back a long way and is reflected, for example, in a national network of care for the poor that was locally based in the parishes and was already in place in the 16th century.
In some ways, I am the least qualified to write about such matters. There have been, and are today, many eminent people in public and academic life who have a far greater claim to reflect on these issues than I have. Perhaps my only justification for even venturing into this field is to be found in Kipling when he wrote, "What should they know of England who only England know?" It may be, then, that to understand the precise relationship of the Christian faith to the public life of this nation, a perspective is helpful which is both rooted in the life of this country and able to look at it from the outside.
As I survey the field, what do I see? I find, first of all, "a descending theme" in terms of Christian influence. That is to say, I find that the systems of governance, of the rule of law, of the assumption of trust in common life all find their inspiration in Scripture; for example, in the Pauline doctrine of the godly magistrate and, ultimately, in the Christian doctrine of God the Holy Trinity, where you have both an ordered relationship and a mutuality of love. As Joan O'Donovan has pointed out, the notion of God's right, or God's justice, produced a network of divine, human and natural law which was the basis of a just ordering of society and also of a mutual sense of obligation "one towards another", as we say at Prayers for the Parliament.
Such a descending theme of influence continues to permeate society, but is especially focused in constitutional arrangements, such as the "Queen in Parliament under God", the Queen's Speech (which always ends with a prayer for Almighty God to bless the counsels of the assembled Parliament), daily prayers in Parliament, the presence of bishops in the House of Lords, the national flag, the national anthem - the list could go on. None of this should be seen as "icing on the cake" or as interesting and tourist-friendly vestigial elements left over from the Middle Ages. They have the purpose of weaving the awareness of God into the body politic of the nation.
In addition to this "descending theme", there is also what we might call the "ascending theme", which comes up from below to animate debate and policy-making in the institutions of state. Much of this has to do with our estimate of the human person and how that affects the business of making law and of governance. Such an estimate goes right back to the rediscovery of Aristotle by Europe - a rediscovery, incidentally, made possible by the work of largely Christian translators in the Islamic world. These translators made Aristotle, and much else besides, available to the Muslims, who used it, commented upon it and passed it on to Western Europe. One of the features of the rediscovery was a further appreciation of the human person as agent by Christian thinkers such as St Thomas Aquinas. They were driven to read the Bible in the light of Aristotle and this had several results which remain important for us today.
One was the discovery of conscience. If the individual is morally and spiritually responsible before God, then we have to think also of how conscience is formed by the Word of God and the Church's proclamation of it so that freedom can be exercised responsibly. Another result was the emergence of the idea that because human beings were moral agents, their consent was needed in the business of governance. It is not enough now simply to draw on notions of God's justice for patterns of government. We need also the consent of the governed who have been made in God's image (a term which comes into the foreground). This dual emphasis on conscience and consent led to people being seen as citizens rather than merely as subjects.
The Reformation also had a view about governance as well as the significance of the individual, which was to prove important for the future. The theme of natural rights was taken up by the Dominicans on the Continent in the context of defending the freedom and the possessions of the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. From there, it influenced prominent thinkers of the moderate Enlightenment in this country, such as John Locke, who were attempting to rethink a Christian basis for society. This was also the context for the Evangelical revival in the 18th century. While the Evangelicals drew inspiration from the Bible for their humanitarian projects, such as the abolition of slavery, universal education and humane conditions of work for men, women and children, the Enlightenment provided them with the intellectual tools and the moral vision of natural rights so that they could argue their case in the public sphere. It was this Evangelical-Enlightenment consensus which brought about the huge social changes of the 19th and early 20th centuries and which came under sustained attack in the second half of the 20th century.
Sociologists of religion have been telling us that the process of secularisation has been a very long one and, indeed, they locate its origin precisely in the Enlightenment's rejection of heteronomous authority and its affirmation of autonomy. Historians, on the other hand, point out that faith flourished in industrial Britain in the 19th century and in the first part of the last century. Indeed, it is possible to say that it continued to prosper well into the 1950s. Was it long-term decline, then, or sudden demise? In fact, there are elements of truth in both approaches. It seems to be the case, however, that something momentous happened in the 1960s which has materially altered the scene: Christ-ianity began to be more and more marginal to the "public doctrine" by which the nation ordered itself, and this state of affairs has continued to the present day.
Many reasons have been given for this situation. Callum Brown has argued that it was the cultural revolution of the 1960s which brought Christianity's role in society to an abrupt and catastrophic end. He notes, particularly, the part played by women in upholding piety and in passing on the faith in the home. It was the loss of this faith and piety among women which caused the steep decline in Christian observance in all sections of society. Peter Mullen and others, similarly, have traced the situation to the student unrest of the 1960s which they claim was inspired by Marxism of one sort or another. The aim was to overturn what I have called the Evangelical-Enlightenment consensus so that revolution might be possible. One of the ingredients in their tactics was to encourage a social and sexual revolution so that a political one would, in due course, come about. Mullen points out that instead of the Churches resisting this phenomenon, liberal theologians and Church leaders all but capitulated to the intellectual and cultural forces of the time.
It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves.
Much more here
UK's trainee maths teachers are bottom of the class when it comes to basic sums
Many trainee maths teachers cannot do basic sums, say researchers. They struggle with reasoning and thinking logically, despite the fact that they will be responsible for passing on these skills to youngsters. Schools across the country are already having trouble recruiting and retaining high quality maths teachers.
The researchers from Plymouth University said it was alarming that so many trainees can get 'very basic' questions wrong. Their study compared English final-year maths teacher trainees with their counterparts in seven other countries. These were China, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Japan, Russia and Singapore. All these countries have good reputations for maths education.
The continuing research, which is funded by the Centre for British Teachers, found that only 21 per cent of English trainees correctly answered a question about the chance of picking different sweets out of a bag. This compared with 97 per cent of Russians, 63 per cent of Hungarians and 60 per cent of Chinese maths students. And a simple question about square roots flummoxed half the English trainees but was answered correctly by more than 90 per cent of their Russian, Chinese and Hungarian colleagues.
The English candidates were weak on algebra questions, but they performed well on shape and space questions about trigonometry and geometry and data handling questions covering statistical techniques. Singapore and Japan have yet to provide results.
Professor David Burghes, director of the Centre for Innovation in Mathematics Teaching at Plymouth University, said he was worried by the results, which are being analysed further. He said: 'We are far behind other countries and the international average in terms of logic and rigour. 'That worries me because it almost feels like we have gone for numeracy rather than mathematics in our schools, particularly primaries - and I think mathematics counts.'
The research comes as a report from the Reform think-tank claimed that GCSE maths has become little more than a 'tick box test' in comparison with the old O-level. It called for a major shake-up of the exam system and a reversal of a trend towards splitting exams into bite-size modules.
A National Audit Office report yesterday highlighted the problem of young people leaving school without good skills in literacy and maths. In 2006-07, 45 per cent of pupils leaving school had not gained Level 2 maths (GCSE grades A*-C) and 40 per cent had not achieved Level 2 English.
Source
British socialists don't care about the troops: "A former head of the SAS has quit the army after criticising the government for risking soldiers' lives by failing to fund troops and equipment. Brigadier Ed Butler, one of Britain's most experienced and decorated special forces soldiers, is the most senior of three key commanders to have resigned in the past year amid widespread anger over lack of funding. News of his resignation comes in the same week that General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, called for better treatment for the forces and more money to be spent on defence.... Butler was highly critical of John Reid, then defence secretary, for keeping troop numbers low and of the failure of the Treasury under Gordon Brown to fund equipment. Lieutenant Colonel Rick Williams MC, another commanding officer of the SAS, resigned last July after being criticised by senior officers for spending too much time on the front line with his men".
Sunday, June 08, 2008
There's no idiocy like British idiocy
Security van makes 120 mile trip to escort prisoner 200 yards
A security van was sent on a 120-mile round trip to move a prisoner 200 yards to avoid breaching his human rights. Mark Bailey, 35, was taken to a Crown Court but after a brief hearing sent immediately to the magistrates' court across the road. Police said Bailey could not be walked across the street in handcuffs because it would breach his human rights - so a van was scrambled from 60 miles away for the 30 second journey. Campaigners and MPs branded the decision "a shocking waste of money" and said it was "no wonder" Britain's criminal justice system was in such a state of chaos.
Bailey appeared from custody before Northampton Crown Court Tuesday morning charged with stealing cable from a railway line. A judge decided it was better dealt with by magistrates and Bailey was ordered to appear the same day. However, by this time the prison van had gone. Police refused to walk him across Victoria Road, which separates the buildings, so a van was called from Cambridge, 57 miles away, to pick him up and drop him off.
He finally arrived at the magistrates' court two hours and 40 minutes after the van was called. Charged with theft and going equipped, Bailey, from Northampton, was remanded in custody.
A spokeswoman for Northamptonshire police said it would "not be appropriate" to walk a prisoner down a public street. She said: "Once a person is in the courts system, they are no longer in police custody and police are not responsible for their transportation. "It would not be appropriate for prisoners to walk in a public area while in custody for many reasons, including public safety issues, as well as the safety and human rights of the prisoner. "Until someone has been convicted of an offence they are innocent in the eyes of the law and it would therefore be inappropriate for them to be escorted across a busy main road in handcuffs."
Brian Binley, Conservative MP for Northampton South, said: "I've never heard such nonsense. Why we should have to suffer such ludicrous incompetence, and pay for it, is beyond me. "In my view, Bailey should have been escorted across the road but if they were worried about him absconding, they could have put him in a squad car - the police station is just around the corner."
Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, added: "This is absurd and a total waste of money. "No wonder our prisons are in such a state of chaos, if they can't even manage to escort a prisoner 200 yards between buildings. "If anyone had shown a bit of initiative this could have been sorted out in five minutes, but instead taxpayers had to foot the bill for this wasteful trek."
A barrister at the court - who wishes to remain anonymous - said: "The transport of prisoners to court is ludicrous and a joke." A spokesman for Global Solutions Limited, responsible for the movement and security of prisoners, said: "It was an unplanned movement and the van had gone to do other things. It is not a taxi service and has a range of duties to make best use of taxpayers' money. "It is more efficient doing it this way than having a load of vehicles sitting around outside court just in case." He said he did not know whether the van came from Cambridge
Source
The incredible British police again
Masked men caught on church roof stealing lead... but that's not enough evidence, say police
When three masked men were caught on the roof of an ancient church that had been stripped of lead worth œ100,000, villagers felt their prayers had been answered. Police arrived in time to catch the trio - in balaclavas and masks - red-handed. Lead had been taken off and rolled up nearby ready to be taken away. But to the astonishment of residents they only got a caution because officers decided they may just have been admiring the view.
After ten thefts of lead in as many months from St Helen's Church in Treeton, South Yorkshire, locals had become so desperate they had even set up their own undercover operation to catch them. However, police let the suspects off because of 'insufficient evidence'. The men had nothing incriminating in their possession when searched and no fingerprints could be taken from the stolen lead.
Churchwarden's wife Carole Robinson says 85 per cent of the lead on the roof has been taken. She added: 'It was beyond belief. The police said they could claim they had only gone up to look at the view. It left people furious. 'We have been plagued with lead thefts and when we finally catch men on the roof they let them off.'
The roof is covered with plastic sheets while officials raise 100,000 pounds to fix it, plus the same amount to repair the tower of the church, which is in the Domesday Book. Builders have erected scaffolding to replace the roof with stainless steel sheets, but thieves have used it to get easier access and steal lead they could not reach before.
Residents spotted the men on the roof after evening service on Sunday. Mrs Robinson said: 'The police arrived and the men came down and in effect gave themselves up. 'It seemed they had been caught red-handed. Lead had been removed and rolled up ready to be carried off. 'But the police said lead was not the kind of material you could get fingerprints from and they did not have enough evidence to take them to court because they could not link the men to the lead. I felt totally vulnerable. The law seems to be on the side of the criminals.'
Suggestions from police that the men were just 'youths' caught on scaffolding were angrily refuted. She said: 'They were men aged between 20 and 30 and they had balaclavas and gloves. I think it's quite wrong for the police dismiss this as youths playing on the scaffolding.'
But Chief Inspector Jason Harwin said: 'Four officers, including a dog handler, spoke with three youths who were on the scaffolding. 'Officers searched all three and examined the surrounding area but found no evidence that any offences had been committed, nor that the youths possessed any articles with which to commit any offences. Officers had no power to arrest these youths. They were warned to stay away from the property. 'Operations have been conducted to catch offenders stealing lead but these have been to no gain. Work is continuing to tackle the issue.'
Thefts of lead from church roofs have become a national problem. Ecclesiastical Insurance, which covers 95 per cent of Anglican churches in Britain received 2,000 claims relating to lead thefts worth 6 million in 2007. In 2005, there were 80 claims for 300,000 pounds.
Source
Greenies: Britain should have 'zero net immigration' policy
Greenies hate people anyway so it figures
Britain should set an example to the world by reversing its steeply-rising population growth and allowing no more people into the country than leave, the Government's chief "green" adviser has said. Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, said it was entirely possible to be "very progressive" on immigration while still having a policy of "zero net immigration" and no further population growth
Mr Porritt told an audience at the Cheltenham Science Festival, he would like to see Britain's population on a declining trend, instead of increasing to 65 million in ten years and to 70 million by 2031. Mr Porritt, who is a patron of the charity, the Optimum Population Trust, warned that globally spending on family planning was "massively" lower than the 8 billion pounds spent on HIV/Aids. Yet it should be around 12.5 billion to 15 billion if the world was to avoid a population of more than 9 billion or more by 2050.
Mr Porritt warned that in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, population trends were increasing "disastrously" because of low spending on family planning. In Kenya and Ethiopia, spending on family planning was now running at 2 per cent of spending on HIV/Aids. As a result the population of Kenya, which had been thought to be around 40 million by the mid-century was now expected to be 80 million. "We are guaranteeing an unstoppable flow of problems like HIV and Aids into the future," he said.
Mr Porritt said there were "complex cultural and religious reasons" why globally family planning had such a low priority. "I've highlighted the malign combination of a Catholic church which sees contraception as a wicked sin, a religious, ideological approach to family planning in the United States, politically correct and ignorant environmentalists and development economists."
He said it was "incomprehensible" why environmentalists and development economists would not acknowledge the significance of family planning and population policies. In fact, if one looked at the amount of carbon it would be possible to emit in 2050, without contributing to dangerous climate change, it was 10 billion tons of carbon, around one ton per person. The larger the world's population was the more uncomfortable that would be, but if the right policies were adopted 30 years earlier it would be possible to keep the world's population at around 8 billion.
Mr Porritt said people were uneasy talking about family planning as a means of reducing population growth. "Politicians won't touch it because they think it will get them into trouble on immigration policy." Others thought "it takes you into China's one child per family and other authoritarian policies." But he highlighted the example of Iran, where population growth had been halted simply through education, backed by religious leaders.
Around the world, he said, it was a universal truth that the longer girls remained in education, the fewer children they had. Mr Porritt said that the prevailing assumption of UN economists that population growth would fall as the world got richer was out of sync with the need for the human race to live within environmental limits. "We can't wait for Bangladesh to get rich enough to do something about it. It will be game over for human kind at that point."
Source
TORIES WARN BROWN HIS OWN PARTY WILL DITCH HIM IF HE DOES NOT SCRAP GREEN TAX RISES
Car tax hikes for millions of drivers became the latest ticking timebomb under Gordon Brown's leadership last night. Despite mounting Labour unrest, the Prime Minister launched a stubborn defence of the plans and said they were an effective means of cutting carbon emissions.
Tory leader David Cameron warned Mr Brown he was likely to lose his job if he refused to scrap what he called 'deeply unpopular and unenvironmental' changes to vehicle excise duty. Pointing to the growing rebellion among Labour MPs over the plans, Mr Cameron bluntly told Mr Brown during angry exchanges at Prime Ministers' Questions: 'If you don't get rid of it, they will probably get rid of you.'
Already 40 Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion and calling for a rethink - enough to wipe out the party's majority if they join forces with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. What one backbencher has called Labour's 'poll tax on wheels' looks increasingly likely to turn into a re-run of the fiasco over the scrapping of the 10p tax rate. MPs fear less well-off drivers - who are unable to afford to change their vehicles - will be worst hit.
Privately, senior ministers expect the Government to have to back down - particularly over a proposal to apply road tax increases retrospectively.... Mr Brown defended the changes as vital to tackling climate change.
More here
The mouse that roared (for once): "The policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have helped to generate a spiritual, civic and economic crisis in Britain, according to an important Church of England report. Labour is failing society and lacks the vision to restore a sense of British identity, the report says in the Church's strongest attack on the Government for decades. It accuses the Government of "deep religious illiteracy" and of having "no convincing moral direction". The report, commissioned for the Church of England and to be published on Monday, accuses the Government of discriminating against the Christian Churches in favour of other faiths, including Islam. It calls for the appointment of a "Minister for Religion", who would act as the Prime Minister's personal "faith envoy" and who would recognise the contribution of faith communities to Britain across every government department. The report comes only days after Dr Sentamu accused Mr Brown of sacrificing liberty for misguided notions of equality and of betraying new Labour's mantra of "rights and responsibilities". It shows the extent to which church leaders feel betrayed by the Government's embrace of a secular agenda".
Security van makes 120 mile trip to escort prisoner 200 yards
A security van was sent on a 120-mile round trip to move a prisoner 200 yards to avoid breaching his human rights. Mark Bailey, 35, was taken to a Crown Court but after a brief hearing sent immediately to the magistrates' court across the road. Police said Bailey could not be walked across the street in handcuffs because it would breach his human rights - so a van was scrambled from 60 miles away for the 30 second journey. Campaigners and MPs branded the decision "a shocking waste of money" and said it was "no wonder" Britain's criminal justice system was in such a state of chaos.
Bailey appeared from custody before Northampton Crown Court Tuesday morning charged with stealing cable from a railway line. A judge decided it was better dealt with by magistrates and Bailey was ordered to appear the same day. However, by this time the prison van had gone. Police refused to walk him across Victoria Road, which separates the buildings, so a van was called from Cambridge, 57 miles away, to pick him up and drop him off.
He finally arrived at the magistrates' court two hours and 40 minutes after the van was called. Charged with theft and going equipped, Bailey, from Northampton, was remanded in custody.
A spokeswoman for Northamptonshire police said it would "not be appropriate" to walk a prisoner down a public street. She said: "Once a person is in the courts system, they are no longer in police custody and police are not responsible for their transportation. "It would not be appropriate for prisoners to walk in a public area while in custody for many reasons, including public safety issues, as well as the safety and human rights of the prisoner. "Until someone has been convicted of an offence they are innocent in the eyes of the law and it would therefore be inappropriate for them to be escorted across a busy main road in handcuffs."
Brian Binley, Conservative MP for Northampton South, said: "I've never heard such nonsense. Why we should have to suffer such ludicrous incompetence, and pay for it, is beyond me. "In my view, Bailey should have been escorted across the road but if they were worried about him absconding, they could have put him in a squad car - the police station is just around the corner."
Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, added: "This is absurd and a total waste of money. "No wonder our prisons are in such a state of chaos, if they can't even manage to escort a prisoner 200 yards between buildings. "If anyone had shown a bit of initiative this could have been sorted out in five minutes, but instead taxpayers had to foot the bill for this wasteful trek."
A barrister at the court - who wishes to remain anonymous - said: "The transport of prisoners to court is ludicrous and a joke." A spokesman for Global Solutions Limited, responsible for the movement and security of prisoners, said: "It was an unplanned movement and the van had gone to do other things. It is not a taxi service and has a range of duties to make best use of taxpayers' money. "It is more efficient doing it this way than having a load of vehicles sitting around outside court just in case." He said he did not know whether the van came from Cambridge
Source
The incredible British police again
Masked men caught on church roof stealing lead... but that's not enough evidence, say police
When three masked men were caught on the roof of an ancient church that had been stripped of lead worth œ100,000, villagers felt their prayers had been answered. Police arrived in time to catch the trio - in balaclavas and masks - red-handed. Lead had been taken off and rolled up nearby ready to be taken away. But to the astonishment of residents they only got a caution because officers decided they may just have been admiring the view.
After ten thefts of lead in as many months from St Helen's Church in Treeton, South Yorkshire, locals had become so desperate they had even set up their own undercover operation to catch them. However, police let the suspects off because of 'insufficient evidence'. The men had nothing incriminating in their possession when searched and no fingerprints could be taken from the stolen lead.
Churchwarden's wife Carole Robinson says 85 per cent of the lead on the roof has been taken. She added: 'It was beyond belief. The police said they could claim they had only gone up to look at the view. It left people furious. 'We have been plagued with lead thefts and when we finally catch men on the roof they let them off.'
The roof is covered with plastic sheets while officials raise 100,000 pounds to fix it, plus the same amount to repair the tower of the church, which is in the Domesday Book. Builders have erected scaffolding to replace the roof with stainless steel sheets, but thieves have used it to get easier access and steal lead they could not reach before.
Residents spotted the men on the roof after evening service on Sunday. Mrs Robinson said: 'The police arrived and the men came down and in effect gave themselves up. 'It seemed they had been caught red-handed. Lead had been removed and rolled up ready to be carried off. 'But the police said lead was not the kind of material you could get fingerprints from and they did not have enough evidence to take them to court because they could not link the men to the lead. I felt totally vulnerable. The law seems to be on the side of the criminals.'
Suggestions from police that the men were just 'youths' caught on scaffolding were angrily refuted. She said: 'They were men aged between 20 and 30 and they had balaclavas and gloves. I think it's quite wrong for the police dismiss this as youths playing on the scaffolding.'
But Chief Inspector Jason Harwin said: 'Four officers, including a dog handler, spoke with three youths who were on the scaffolding. 'Officers searched all three and examined the surrounding area but found no evidence that any offences had been committed, nor that the youths possessed any articles with which to commit any offences. Officers had no power to arrest these youths. They were warned to stay away from the property. 'Operations have been conducted to catch offenders stealing lead but these have been to no gain. Work is continuing to tackle the issue.'
Thefts of lead from church roofs have become a national problem. Ecclesiastical Insurance, which covers 95 per cent of Anglican churches in Britain received 2,000 claims relating to lead thefts worth 6 million in 2007. In 2005, there were 80 claims for 300,000 pounds.
Source
Greenies: Britain should have 'zero net immigration' policy
Greenies hate people anyway so it figures
Britain should set an example to the world by reversing its steeply-rising population growth and allowing no more people into the country than leave, the Government's chief "green" adviser has said. Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, said it was entirely possible to be "very progressive" on immigration while still having a policy of "zero net immigration" and no further population growth
Mr Porritt told an audience at the Cheltenham Science Festival, he would like to see Britain's population on a declining trend, instead of increasing to 65 million in ten years and to 70 million by 2031. Mr Porritt, who is a patron of the charity, the Optimum Population Trust, warned that globally spending on family planning was "massively" lower than the 8 billion pounds spent on HIV/Aids. Yet it should be around 12.5 billion to 15 billion if the world was to avoid a population of more than 9 billion or more by 2050.
Mr Porritt warned that in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, population trends were increasing "disastrously" because of low spending on family planning. In Kenya and Ethiopia, spending on family planning was now running at 2 per cent of spending on HIV/Aids. As a result the population of Kenya, which had been thought to be around 40 million by the mid-century was now expected to be 80 million. "We are guaranteeing an unstoppable flow of problems like HIV and Aids into the future," he said.
Mr Porritt said there were "complex cultural and religious reasons" why globally family planning had such a low priority. "I've highlighted the malign combination of a Catholic church which sees contraception as a wicked sin, a religious, ideological approach to family planning in the United States, politically correct and ignorant environmentalists and development economists."
He said it was "incomprehensible" why environmentalists and development economists would not acknowledge the significance of family planning and population policies. In fact, if one looked at the amount of carbon it would be possible to emit in 2050, without contributing to dangerous climate change, it was 10 billion tons of carbon, around one ton per person. The larger the world's population was the more uncomfortable that would be, but if the right policies were adopted 30 years earlier it would be possible to keep the world's population at around 8 billion.
Mr Porritt said people were uneasy talking about family planning as a means of reducing population growth. "Politicians won't touch it because they think it will get them into trouble on immigration policy." Others thought "it takes you into China's one child per family and other authoritarian policies." But he highlighted the example of Iran, where population growth had been halted simply through education, backed by religious leaders.
Around the world, he said, it was a universal truth that the longer girls remained in education, the fewer children they had. Mr Porritt said that the prevailing assumption of UN economists that population growth would fall as the world got richer was out of sync with the need for the human race to live within environmental limits. "We can't wait for Bangladesh to get rich enough to do something about it. It will be game over for human kind at that point."
Source
TORIES WARN BROWN HIS OWN PARTY WILL DITCH HIM IF HE DOES NOT SCRAP GREEN TAX RISES
Car tax hikes for millions of drivers became the latest ticking timebomb under Gordon Brown's leadership last night. Despite mounting Labour unrest, the Prime Minister launched a stubborn defence of the plans and said they were an effective means of cutting carbon emissions.
Tory leader David Cameron warned Mr Brown he was likely to lose his job if he refused to scrap what he called 'deeply unpopular and unenvironmental' changes to vehicle excise duty. Pointing to the growing rebellion among Labour MPs over the plans, Mr Cameron bluntly told Mr Brown during angry exchanges at Prime Ministers' Questions: 'If you don't get rid of it, they will probably get rid of you.'
Already 40 Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion and calling for a rethink - enough to wipe out the party's majority if they join forces with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. What one backbencher has called Labour's 'poll tax on wheels' looks increasingly likely to turn into a re-run of the fiasco over the scrapping of the 10p tax rate. MPs fear less well-off drivers - who are unable to afford to change their vehicles - will be worst hit.
Privately, senior ministers expect the Government to have to back down - particularly over a proposal to apply road tax increases retrospectively.... Mr Brown defended the changes as vital to tackling climate change.
More here
The mouse that roared (for once): "The policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have helped to generate a spiritual, civic and economic crisis in Britain, according to an important Church of England report. Labour is failing society and lacks the vision to restore a sense of British identity, the report says in the Church's strongest attack on the Government for decades. It accuses the Government of "deep religious illiteracy" and of having "no convincing moral direction". The report, commissioned for the Church of England and to be published on Monday, accuses the Government of discriminating against the Christian Churches in favour of other faiths, including Islam. It calls for the appointment of a "Minister for Religion", who would act as the Prime Minister's personal "faith envoy" and who would recognise the contribution of faith communities to Britain across every government department. The report comes only days after Dr Sentamu accused Mr Brown of sacrificing liberty for misguided notions of equality and of betraying new Labour's mantra of "rights and responsibilities". It shows the extent to which church leaders feel betrayed by the Government's embrace of a secular agenda".
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer
Post below recycled from The Register, an excellent British skeptical publication
The story is that the world is heating up - fast. Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze. We all know how to read a thermometer - it is not rocket science.
Previously we looked at how US temperature data sets have been adjusted - with more recent versions of historical data sets showing a steeper rise in temperature than they used to. Here, we'll be looking at current NASA data and why their temperature maps appear hot-red, even when others are cool-blue.
To recap the earlier article, the graph below shows additional adjustments to the data set since the big "correction" in 2000.
20th century temperature trends - USHCN raw data (lots of blue)
Prior to any adjustments, more than half the US shows declining temperatures over the 20th century - blue and green colors - i.e. the US is cooling down. However, subsequent to the adjustments the country goes dominantly warmer (red and yellow) - as seen in the image below.
20th Century temperature trends - USHCN raw data (lots of red)
Below is a video showing the USHCN adjustments in action.
Differences between reported temperature anomalies, NASA, RSS and UAH - with UAH as the baseline.
Lost Continents
The divergence is now quite striking. Looking closer at March 2008, NASA's data shows the month as the third warmest on record. In sharp contrast, UAH and RSS satellite data showed March as the second coldest on record in the southern hemisphere, and just barely above average for the whole planet. How could such a large discrepancy occur?
Viewing the NASA 250-mile map for March below, what immediately grabs the attention is that NASA has essentially no data (gray areas) in most of Canada, most of Africa, the Greenland ice sheet, and most of Antarctica. This begs the question, how can one calculate an accurate "global temperature" while lacking any data from large contiguous regions of three continents?
So what was NASA missing?
NASA Temperatures March, 2008 - 250-mile smoothing radius - looks hot
We can find NASA's lost continents in the UAH satellite data for March below.
UAH Satellite Temperatures March, 2008 - looks cool
Not surprisingly, the missing areas in Canada and Africa were cold. The NASA data thus becomes disproportionately weighted towards warm areas - particularly in the northern hemisphere. As can be seen in the UAH satellite map above, the warm areas actually made up a relatively small percentage of the planet. The vast majority of the earth had normal temperatures or below. Given that NASA has lost track of a number of large cold regions, it is understandable that their averages are on the high side.
Additionally, NASA reports their global temperature measurements within one one-hundredth of a degree. This is a classic mathematics error, since they have no data from 20 per cent of the earth's land area. The reported precision is much greater than the error bar - a mistake which has caused many a high school student to fail their exams.
Cherry picking
A second important issue with NASA's presentation is that they use the time period of 1951-1980 as their choice of baseline. This was a well known cold spell, as can be seen in the 1999 version of the NASA US temperature graph below.
NASA US Temperature Map August, 1999. Note the cooling trend since 1930, and particularly between 1951 and 1980.
Temperatures dropped enough during that period to trigger concern about the onset of an ice age. Newsweek magazine went so far as to mention a proposed "solution" of spreading soot (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) in the Arctic to melt the polar ice caps. 1978 was the coldest winter on record in much of North America. By using a cold baseline, all recent temperatures become relatively warm - which causes the NASA maps to be covered with lots of hot red and brown colors. From looking at the NASA map above, one could easily believe that that the earth is having a meltdown. By contrast, the UAH map makes most of the earth look quite cool.
When we look at the temperature data for Alaska, the disparity is again quite striking.
The NASA temperature map for March above shows Alaska temperatures much above "normal", while the UAH map shows Alaska temperatures well below "normal". This is partially due to the fact that the 1951-1980 NASA baseline period was unusually cold in Alaska - due to the cold phase of a dominant ocean cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), as shown below. The graph below indicates variations in Pacific temperatures, showing a cold period from 1950-1980 which exactly matches NASA's baseline period.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation in its cold phase from 1951-1980 (the period of the NASA baseline)p>
When the PDO ocean pattern is in its cold cycle, the Pacific remains dominantly in the La Nina phase, causing cold temperatures - particularly around the Pacific basin. La Nina also causes cold northern hemisphere winter temperatures across much of the world - as measured in 2008.
NASA's colourful Antarctic makeover
We can see how dramatic an artistic makeover can be. On the left, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that "the interior of Antarctica is generally cooling". Indeed, most of the landmass is cooler, or the same as it was, with patches of warming around the periphery.
On the right, NASA's Earth Observatory warns that "Between 1981 and 2007, most of Antarctica warmed" - and the graph is correspondingly crimson. For the colourists at the Earth Observatory, a mere +0.01C is needed to colour the continent red.
Conclusion
One month does not make a temperature trend, and the point of this article is not to ascertain whether or not the earth is warming towards Armageddon. We are not qualified to analyze that or second-guess the experts. What is being examined is the quality and stability of the data being used by people making those claims.
For example, whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy, we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world's leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming, and is Al Gore's primary climate advisor. The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can't help but make us consider Einstein's advice:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
NHS dentistry becoming less and less accessible
Far fewer people see an NHS dentist than before a large-scale reorganisation of dentistry service, according to official figures. Data released yesterday by the NHS Information Centre showed that a total of 27.3 million patients — equivalent to 53.7 per cent of the population — saw an NHS dentist in the two years to December 2007. This compares with 28.1 million (55.8 per cent of the population) in the two years to April 2006, when the Government’s new dental contract was implemented. The contract’s aim was to increase access and simplify dental charges.
The report also showed wide variations across England in who gets access to an NHS dentist, with greater disparities among adults than children. Among adults, the proportion who had seen a dentist in the 24 months up to December 2007 ranged from 38.9 per cent in the South Central Strategic Health Authority area to 58.3 per cent in the North East. There was also a wide variation in the number of children who have access to dental services, with 73.4 per cent seeing a dentist over the same period in the North East compared with 64.8 per cent in London.
Recent surveys have suggested that scores of patients are being forced to pay for private dental treatment because of a lack of practitioners willing to carry out NHS work.
Current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) suggest that people should see their dentist either every six months or at intervals of up to two years, as the practice sees fit.
The British Dental Association said the figures offered fresh evidence that ministers had failed to achieve their stated aims with the contract. Peter Ward, its chief executive, said: “They have failed to improve access to care for patients and failed to allow dentists to provide the modern, preventive care they want to deliver. “Instead, this contract encourages sporadic, episodic treatment rather than the long-term, continuing relationships that dentists and their patients value. “The Government must heed these statistics and work with patients and dentists to find constructive solutions to the problems with the reforms behind this decline.”
Experts said that patients who did not have regular check-ups could be storing up health problems. Ben Atkins, of Rocky Lane dental practice in Manchester, said: “If people are not going to the dentist regularly, they are not going to pick up warning signs and the small problems that can develop into serious problems such as tooth loss, abscesses and even cancer. Holes can develop in dental enamel in as little as a few months. They can be easily corrected with a filling, but if not checked early, they can cause greater decay down to the nerves.”
Conservatives said the figures suggested that 338,000 people lost NHS dentistry in the past three months of 2007 — equivalent to 3,674 a day. The information centre confirmed that the number of patients seing an NHS dentist “had been falling consistently over the past few years” and that this fall had been greatest between September and December last year. Mike Penning, the Conservatives’ health spokesman, said: “These figures are yet another damning indictment of Labour’s appalling management of NHS dentistry. The fact that over 300,000 people lost their dentist in three months alone shows just how bad things are getting.”
A survey of 5,000 patients and 700 dentists last year concluded that the quality of care patients had received since the introduction of the contracts has worsened. Among dentists, 45 per cent said they were not accepting any more NHS patients while nearly three quarters said that they were aware of patients declining treatment because of the cost. However, 93 per cent of patients receiving NHS dentistry said that they were were happy with the treatment provided.
Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said that the dental contract had been an “abject failure”. He added: “We need an urgent review into why reforms undertaken just two years ago have completely failed to improve access.”
Barry Cockcroft, the Chief Dental Officer, said: “Since the dental reforms, we have made expanding NHS dentistry a national priority and have invested an extra 200 million this year to help strengthen local services and open more practices. “The information centre access figures do not reflect the new services that are opening all the time. Rather, the figures are retrospective and include the temporary decrease in access which occurred following the transition to the new system in 2006.”
Source
Babies could soon have three parents
DESIGNER babies with three parents could be born within three years. The controversial technique screens an embryo created by a man and a woman for incurable genetic diseases. Defective DNA is replaced with that from another woman, effectively giving the baby two mothers and a father. Scientists at Newcastle University in the UK have already created embryos using the method and are perfecting it for use in IVF clinics. They say it could free children from diseases including some forms of diabetes, blindness and heart problems.
Critics say it could lead to genetically-modified babies being designed to order. UK law says embryos created using the technique must be destroyed, but scientists hope this can be overturned.
The research focuses on mitochondria "batteries" inside cells, which turn food into energy. Each mitochondrion has its own DNA, which is passed from mother to child. Defects in this DNA affect more than one in 5000 babies and cause around 50 genetic diseases, some of which kill before adulthood. The researchers have managed to swap the damaged DNA with healthy genetic material.
The first step is fertilisation of an egg through IVF. The embryo is screened for defects. When it is a few hours old, the nucleus containing genetic information from the parents is removed and put into another woman's healthy egg. Mitochondria are outside the nucleus so the baby is free of defects and will look like its "real" parents.
US biologist Professor Jonathan Van Blerkom told New Scientist magazine it would be "criminal" not to allow the technique to be used. There are fears that the influence of mitochondria on areas including longevity, IQ and fertility could lead to GM babies being made to order.
Source
A wonderful triumph against great odds: "Finley Crampton really shouldn't be here. Although his parents would have loved another child, they knew their baby could inherit a life-threatening kidney condition - and they couldn't take the risk. After all, their first son had died of the condition and the second was born with serious kidney damage. So when Finley's mother, Jodie Percival, became pregnant while on the Pill, she and her fiance Billy Crampton, 35, made the agonising decision to abort this child... However, Finley had other ideas. And some time after the operation, Miss Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach.... The child had survived the abortion and thrived in the womb... But a week later, another scan confirmed that this baby had kidney problems too, like the couple's previous children.... Her first baby, Thane, had lived for only 20 minutes after she was forced to deliver him prematurely. Her second son, Lewis, now 20 months, was born with a similar condition. He survives on one kidney... And in November, Finley was born three weeks premature, at 6lb 3oz. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life."
Post below recycled from The Register, an excellent British skeptical publication
The story is that the world is heating up - fast. Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze. We all know how to read a thermometer - it is not rocket science.
Previously we looked at how US temperature data sets have been adjusted - with more recent versions of historical data sets showing a steeper rise in temperature than they used to. Here, we'll be looking at current NASA data and why their temperature maps appear hot-red, even when others are cool-blue.
To recap the earlier article, the graph below shows additional adjustments to the data set since the big "correction" in 2000.
We observe that the data has been consistently adjusted towards a bias of greater warming. The years prior to the 1970s have again been adjusted to lower temperatures, and recent years have been adjusted towards higher temperatures.
NASA's published data is largely based on data from the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which derives its data from thermometer readings across the country. According to USHCN literature, the raw temperature data is adjusted to compensate for geographical movements in the weather stations, changes in the 24-hour start/end times when the readings are taken, and other factors. USHCN is directly affiliated with the Oak Ridge National Laboratories' Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, an organisation which exists primarily to promote the idea of a link between CO2 and climate.
The map below shows what the raw unadjusted USHCN temperature trends for the US in the 20th century looked like.
20th century temperature trends - USHCN raw data (lots of blue)
Prior to any adjustments, more than half the US shows declining temperatures over the 20th century - blue and green colors - i.e. the US is cooling down. However, subsequent to the adjustments the country goes dominantly warmer (red and yellow) - as seen in the image below.
20th Century temperature trends - USHCN raw data (lots of red)
Below is a video showing the USHCN adjustments in action.
Divergence
So how does NASA's data compare with other temperature sources? As we explained in our earlier article, NASA data is derived from a grid of ground-based thermometers. During the last thirty years, we also have the benefit of more sophisticated technology - satellites which can indirectly record temperatures across most of the planet. The satellite data is from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).
In 1998 (left side of the graph below) NASA and the satellite data sources RSS and UAH all agreed quite closely - within one-tenth of a degree. Ten years later - in March 2008 - NASA is reporting temperature anomalies more than 0.5 degrees warmer than UAH. The divergence between NASA and UAH has increased at a rate of 0.13 degrees per decade (red lines below.) In contrast, RSS has converged with UAH over the period and is now within 0.02 degrees (blue lines below.)
Differences between reported temperature anomalies, NASA, RSS and UAH - with UAH as the baseline.
Lost Continents
The divergence is now quite striking. Looking closer at March 2008, NASA's data shows the month as the third warmest on record. In sharp contrast, UAH and RSS satellite data showed March as the second coldest on record in the southern hemisphere, and just barely above average for the whole planet. How could such a large discrepancy occur?
Viewing the NASA 250-mile map for March below, what immediately grabs the attention is that NASA has essentially no data (gray areas) in most of Canada, most of Africa, the Greenland ice sheet, and most of Antarctica. This begs the question, how can one calculate an accurate "global temperature" while lacking any data from large contiguous regions of three continents?
So what was NASA missing?
NASA Temperatures March, 2008 - 250-mile smoothing radius - looks hot
We can find NASA's lost continents in the UAH satellite data for March below.
UAH Satellite Temperatures March, 2008 - looks cool
Not surprisingly, the missing areas in Canada and Africa were cold. The NASA data thus becomes disproportionately weighted towards warm areas - particularly in the northern hemisphere. As can be seen in the UAH satellite map above, the warm areas actually made up a relatively small percentage of the planet. The vast majority of the earth had normal temperatures or below. Given that NASA has lost track of a number of large cold regions, it is understandable that their averages are on the high side.
Additionally, NASA reports their global temperature measurements within one one-hundredth of a degree. This is a classic mathematics error, since they have no data from 20 per cent of the earth's land area. The reported precision is much greater than the error bar - a mistake which has caused many a high school student to fail their exams.
Cherry picking
A second important issue with NASA's presentation is that they use the time period of 1951-1980 as their choice of baseline. This was a well known cold spell, as can be seen in the 1999 version of the NASA US temperature graph below.
NASA US Temperature Map August, 1999. Note the cooling trend since 1930, and particularly between 1951 and 1980.
Temperatures dropped enough during that period to trigger concern about the onset of an ice age. Newsweek magazine went so far as to mention a proposed "solution" of spreading soot (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) in the Arctic to melt the polar ice caps. 1978 was the coldest winter on record in much of North America. By using a cold baseline, all recent temperatures become relatively warm - which causes the NASA maps to be covered with lots of hot red and brown colors. From looking at the NASA map above, one could easily believe that that the earth is having a meltdown. By contrast, the UAH map makes most of the earth look quite cool.
When we look at the temperature data for Alaska, the disparity is again quite striking.
The NASA temperature map for March above shows Alaska temperatures much above "normal", while the UAH map shows Alaska temperatures well below "normal". This is partially due to the fact that the 1951-1980 NASA baseline period was unusually cold in Alaska - due to the cold phase of a dominant ocean cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), as shown below. The graph below indicates variations in Pacific temperatures, showing a cold period from 1950-1980 which exactly matches NASA's baseline period.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation in its cold phase from 1951-1980 (the period of the NASA baseline)p>
When the PDO ocean pattern is in its cold cycle, the Pacific remains dominantly in the La Nina phase, causing cold temperatures - particularly around the Pacific basin. La Nina also causes cold northern hemisphere winter temperatures across much of the world - as measured in 2008.
NASA's colourful Antarctic makeover
We can see how dramatic an artistic makeover can be. On the left, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that "the interior of Antarctica is generally cooling". Indeed, most of the landmass is cooler, or the same as it was, with patches of warming around the periphery.
On the right, NASA's Earth Observatory warns that "Between 1981 and 2007, most of Antarctica warmed" - and the graph is correspondingly crimson. For the colourists at the Earth Observatory, a mere +0.01C is needed to colour the continent red.
Conclusion
One month does not make a temperature trend, and the point of this article is not to ascertain whether or not the earth is warming towards Armageddon. We are not qualified to analyze that or second-guess the experts. What is being examined is the quality and stability of the data being used by people making those claims.
For example, whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy, we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. James Hansen at GISS is the person in charge of the NASA temperature data. He is also the world's leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming, and is Al Gore's primary climate advisor. The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can't help but make us consider Einstein's advice:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
NHS dentistry becoming less and less accessible
Far fewer people see an NHS dentist than before a large-scale reorganisation of dentistry service, according to official figures. Data released yesterday by the NHS Information Centre showed that a total of 27.3 million patients — equivalent to 53.7 per cent of the population — saw an NHS dentist in the two years to December 2007. This compares with 28.1 million (55.8 per cent of the population) in the two years to April 2006, when the Government’s new dental contract was implemented. The contract’s aim was to increase access and simplify dental charges.
The report also showed wide variations across England in who gets access to an NHS dentist, with greater disparities among adults than children. Among adults, the proportion who had seen a dentist in the 24 months up to December 2007 ranged from 38.9 per cent in the South Central Strategic Health Authority area to 58.3 per cent in the North East. There was also a wide variation in the number of children who have access to dental services, with 73.4 per cent seeing a dentist over the same period in the North East compared with 64.8 per cent in London.
Recent surveys have suggested that scores of patients are being forced to pay for private dental treatment because of a lack of practitioners willing to carry out NHS work.
Current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) suggest that people should see their dentist either every six months or at intervals of up to two years, as the practice sees fit.
The British Dental Association said the figures offered fresh evidence that ministers had failed to achieve their stated aims with the contract. Peter Ward, its chief executive, said: “They have failed to improve access to care for patients and failed to allow dentists to provide the modern, preventive care they want to deliver. “Instead, this contract encourages sporadic, episodic treatment rather than the long-term, continuing relationships that dentists and their patients value. “The Government must heed these statistics and work with patients and dentists to find constructive solutions to the problems with the reforms behind this decline.”
Experts said that patients who did not have regular check-ups could be storing up health problems. Ben Atkins, of Rocky Lane dental practice in Manchester, said: “If people are not going to the dentist regularly, they are not going to pick up warning signs and the small problems that can develop into serious problems such as tooth loss, abscesses and even cancer. Holes can develop in dental enamel in as little as a few months. They can be easily corrected with a filling, but if not checked early, they can cause greater decay down to the nerves.”
Conservatives said the figures suggested that 338,000 people lost NHS dentistry in the past three months of 2007 — equivalent to 3,674 a day. The information centre confirmed that the number of patients seing an NHS dentist “had been falling consistently over the past few years” and that this fall had been greatest between September and December last year. Mike Penning, the Conservatives’ health spokesman, said: “These figures are yet another damning indictment of Labour’s appalling management of NHS dentistry. The fact that over 300,000 people lost their dentist in three months alone shows just how bad things are getting.”
A survey of 5,000 patients and 700 dentists last year concluded that the quality of care patients had received since the introduction of the contracts has worsened. Among dentists, 45 per cent said they were not accepting any more NHS patients while nearly three quarters said that they were aware of patients declining treatment because of the cost. However, 93 per cent of patients receiving NHS dentistry said that they were were happy with the treatment provided.
Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said that the dental contract had been an “abject failure”. He added: “We need an urgent review into why reforms undertaken just two years ago have completely failed to improve access.”
Barry Cockcroft, the Chief Dental Officer, said: “Since the dental reforms, we have made expanding NHS dentistry a national priority and have invested an extra 200 million this year to help strengthen local services and open more practices. “The information centre access figures do not reflect the new services that are opening all the time. Rather, the figures are retrospective and include the temporary decrease in access which occurred following the transition to the new system in 2006.”
Source
Babies could soon have three parents
DESIGNER babies with three parents could be born within three years. The controversial technique screens an embryo created by a man and a woman for incurable genetic diseases. Defective DNA is replaced with that from another woman, effectively giving the baby two mothers and a father. Scientists at Newcastle University in the UK have already created embryos using the method and are perfecting it for use in IVF clinics. They say it could free children from diseases including some forms of diabetes, blindness and heart problems.
Critics say it could lead to genetically-modified babies being designed to order. UK law says embryos created using the technique must be destroyed, but scientists hope this can be overturned.
The research focuses on mitochondria "batteries" inside cells, which turn food into energy. Each mitochondrion has its own DNA, which is passed from mother to child. Defects in this DNA affect more than one in 5000 babies and cause around 50 genetic diseases, some of which kill before adulthood. The researchers have managed to swap the damaged DNA with healthy genetic material.
The first step is fertilisation of an egg through IVF. The embryo is screened for defects. When it is a few hours old, the nucleus containing genetic information from the parents is removed and put into another woman's healthy egg. Mitochondria are outside the nucleus so the baby is free of defects and will look like its "real" parents.
US biologist Professor Jonathan Van Blerkom told New Scientist magazine it would be "criminal" not to allow the technique to be used. There are fears that the influence of mitochondria on areas including longevity, IQ and fertility could lead to GM babies being made to order.
Source
A wonderful triumph against great odds: "Finley Crampton really shouldn't be here. Although his parents would have loved another child, they knew their baby could inherit a life-threatening kidney condition - and they couldn't take the risk. After all, their first son had died of the condition and the second was born with serious kidney damage. So when Finley's mother, Jodie Percival, became pregnant while on the Pill, she and her fiance Billy Crampton, 35, made the agonising decision to abort this child... However, Finley had other ideas. And some time after the operation, Miss Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach.... The child had survived the abortion and thrived in the womb... But a week later, another scan confirmed that this baby had kidney problems too, like the couple's previous children.... Her first baby, Thane, had lived for only 20 minutes after she was forced to deliver him prematurely. Her second son, Lewis, now 20 months, was born with a similar condition. He survives on one kidney... And in November, Finley was born three weeks premature, at 6lb 3oz. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life."
Friday, June 06, 2008
The insane British animal freaks
At the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, they hate people. And animals die because their hostility chases away many potential carers. Reminiscent of all the animals that America's PETA kills. Although the RSPCA is a voluntary organization, legislation has given them certain powers and they use that to hurt people if they can. Too bad about the animals
The lady looked up at me sourly. "You're ten minutes too late". They said it would be OK, I pleaded; ten past three - I did ring to check. You see, it's quite hard to find the time and I don't know when... "3pm", she said sharply. "There's no one available to speak to you now." I looked at the bevy of staff loitering around behind the desk, doing nothing much. One woman caught my eye sympathetically. "You can have a quick look round", Ms Timetable said. "Then come back another time."
And then what? "Then you fill in a form." Could I do that now? "No, because there's no one available to interview you." I glanced again at all the staff behind her. Maybe I could fill in the form and leave it? You know, cut out another visit? It was a three-hour round trip, after all. "You have to fill it in with us." Then what "Then they come and visit you at home, see if your house is suitable. And then you can come back and see the dogs..."
I gave up. This was the second RSPCA animal shelter that I had tried to adopt from - the first being unwilling even to let us look around. And three three-hour trips to this joyless centre of bureaucracy, where animals might be tended, but humans are treated with disdain, without the promise of so much as a hamster at the end of it, was more than I could bear.
Then there was the child problem. I had a four-year-old. And the RSPCA will not allow any child under 5 to have a dog; not even if she'll be 4 by the time that it arrives. Except in special circumstances. Which were? No one would tell me. I had to jump through their hoops first, with the almost certain promise of rejection at the end of it.
It's funny how many RSPCA refuseniks you come across once you become one yourself. There was the man who was told that he could have a cat only if he built platforms under the skylights in his London flat - in case the cat climbed across the roof and fell through the window. Or the woman in a rural area who was advised to heighten her fence to 20ft, because some cats like to jump high. And a mother (the owner of two happy dogs) in Norfolk who simply screamed: "RSPCA? Forget it!"
When you see the "Pet Adoption Week" campaign being launched by the RSPCA next week, with Badger the starving terrier who was rescued by a television presenter, remember these stories.
I wouldn't normally have bothered to remark on this. If the charity wants to put down more animals than is necessary, that's its business. Its, and the people who fund it: the RSPCA has an annual income of more than 100 million pounds, and about 200 million in assets, plus many millions more in its 174 branches around the country (the one that I looked up, Solent, had 3.8 million tucked away). The British give more to animal charities than to charities for the disabled. One donkey sanctuary in Devon has higher income than all the main charities fighting abuse against women combined. Still, your business. Give money to what you like.
But now the RSPCA, in its joylessness, is telling schools that they can no longer have pets. Research by the charity has found that a quarter of schools own pets, ranging from a hermit crab to a horse. Hurrah! A small piece of chaos, of life, amid the regimented drilling that we call school. Not for much longer - the RSPCA believes there is a danger that the kids might be too noisy, or the lighting conditions could be wrong, and that the classroom pet may receive variable care from different families at evenings or weekends.
If the RSPCA has its way, no more generations of kids will be taught to care for the school guinea pig or rabbit, or hermit crab; no more learning responsibility and respect for animals, no feeling the joy of holding a live thing in their hands. Laughably, the charity suggests that schools should get a soft toy instead to teach children about animal welfare. This is no joke. They really do want to stop it. The charity has sent all schools a letter warning them of their duties under the draconian Animal Welfare Act introduced at its own urging two years ago. That Act imposed a duty of care on any adult in charge of a pet, or any adult responsible for a child who is in possession of an animal.
Now the RSPCA has told schools to name a single person responsible for the rabbit's welfare, so that they can hold that person to account. The 2006 Act gave uniformed RSPCA officers the right to enter non-domestic properties without a warrant (they can enter your home only with a warrant, but they like people to believe otherwise) to check for animal rights abuses. Find a hamster being teased by Harry and the nominated teacher could face up to a year in jail. We must not let these people bully the life out of schools.
I went to a different animal sanctuary in the end. They sent over Dave to see whether I might be able to have a cat (I was running with the cat idea by then). A morose individual, like so many animal obsessives, Dave carefully checked for feline dangers, telling me to be sure to keep the cat shut indoors at night in case it got run over. Isn't depriving a cat of the night a bit like depriving a human being of light? Night-time hunting is what a cat does.
But then, I'm just someone who likes animals. I'm not an obsessive. I think that's healthy. I like humans too. There seems to be a distinction between being a human and being an "animal lover" akin to the difference between riding a bicycle and being a "cyclist". The militants are similarly at a loss for any sense of humour or humanity. In the end, we bought a puppy. Please don't tell the RSPCA.
Source
'Children happier under care of grandparents'
No! Force them into government run pre-schools and kindergartens! That's what the British and other Leftist governments are planning anyway
Academics at Oxford University and the Institute of Education, London, found that grandparents can help young children because they often have more time to spend with them than working parents. They are good at solving their problems as well as discussing their future plans. The survey of more than 1,500 children also discovered that grandparents could help keep them calm during crises such as divorce. Researchers found that one grandmother in three regularly looked after a grandchild, while 40 per cent helped out occasionally. But they believe that more grandparents should become involved in care to improve their grandchildren's well-being, and that the Government should do more to recognise their importance to society.
Prof Ann Buchanan, the director of the Centre for Research into Parenting and Children in the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at Oxford University, said: "What was especially interesting was the link between involved grandparents and adolescent well-being. Closeness was not enough: only grandparents who got stuck in had this positive impact on their grandchildren." The study's findings will be discussed at the annual meeting of the Grandparents' Association in London on Wednesday.
The survey encountered one teenager who claimed that his grandmother "taught us to read and write", and another whose grandparents discussed with him not only what GCSEs to take but what universities he should apply to and what career to take. A 12-year-old girl said her grandmother comforted her when she was being bullied at school. Grandparents who were healthy, lived in less-deprived areas and had regular contact with their grandchildren were found to have the most involvement in their upbringing.
The children questioned said it did not matter how far away their grandparents lived, because they could keep in touch using technology such as mobile phones and email.
Source
Islamic extremists should get therapy, British government tells local councils
Police and councils have been told to avoid putting some Islamic extremists through the criminal justice system
Members of extremist groups have have not "clearly" committed a crime would receive therapy and counselling under new Government plans to "deradicalise" religious fanatics. The Home Office is to announce an extra 12.5 million pounds to support new initiatives to try to stop extremism spreading. The central element of the Home Office plan is a new national "deradicalisation" programme that would persuade converts to violent and extremist causes to change their views. Controversially, the new plan makes clear that people who fall under the influence of violent organisations will not automatically face prosecution.
The Government says the presumption should now be that individuals who have not yet committed a crime would face therapy and counselling from community groups instead of being sanctioned. Documents being distributed to local councils explain that many people who get drawn into extremism have often suffered some sort of personal trauma or crisis that makes them vulnerable to exploitation. "We do not want to put through the criminal justice system those who are vulnerable to, or are being drawn into, violent extremism unless they have clearly committed an offence," a Home Office report says. "It is vital that individuals and communities understand this and have the confidence to use the support structures that we shall be developing."
A Home Office spokesman today insisted radicals who break the law will still be prosecuted: A spokesman said: "The police and the Criminal Justice Service will still those who prosecute people who commit offences and the guidance makes absolutely clear this is about preventing people being drawn into criminality and rehabilitating those that have not been."
Most of the new funding will be set aside for grants to community groups that challenge the messages of violent extremists should be supported. The plan includes a suggestion that local councils should map their areas religion, surveying and recording the faiths and denominations of local residents. New guidelines for councils say: "A deeper understanding of local communities should be developed to help inform and focus the programme of action - this may include mapping denominational backgrounds and demographic and socio-economic factors."
The Home Office has told councils they must be prepared to ask police to vet anyone involved in projects that receive government anti-radicalisation funding. If a group is found to be promoting violent extremism, local agencies and the police should consider disrupting or removing funding, and deny access to public facilities, the document added.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "A key element of our strategy aims to stop people getting involved in extremist violence. "We are investing at local level to build resilient communities, which are equipped to confront violent extremism and support the most vulnerable individuals."
Shadow home secretary David Davis said of today's publication: "This is pointless when the Government is fuelling the problem it is seeking to solve with its draconian approach to 42 days."
Source
Drop 'middle-class' academic subjects says British schools adviser
Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school because they are "middle-class" creations, a Government adviser will claim today. Professor John White, who contributed to a controversial shake-up of the secondary curriculum, believes lessons should instead cover a series of personal skills. Pupils would no longer study history, geography and science but learn skills such as energy- saving and civic responsibility through projects and themes. He will outline his theories at a conference today staged by London's Institute of Education - to which he is affiliated - to mark the 20th anniversary of the national curriculum.
Last night, critics attacked his ideas as "deeply corrosive" and condemned the Government for allowing him to advise on a new curriculum. Professor White will claim ministers are already "moving in the right direction" towards realising his vision of replacing subjects with a series of personal aims for pupils. But he says they must go further because traditional subjects were invented by the middle classes and are "mere stepping stones to wealth". [And who would want that?]
The professor believes the origins of our subject-based education system can be traced back to 19th century middle-class values. While public schools focused largely on the classics, and elementary schools for the working class concentrated on the three Rs, middle-class schools taught a range of academic subjects. These included English, maths, history, geography, science and Latin or a modern language. They "fed into the idea of academic learning as the mark of a well-heeled middle- class", he said last night. The Tories then attempted to impose these middle-class values by introducing a traditional subject-based curriculum in 1988. But this "alienated many youngsters, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds", he claimed.
The professor, who specialises in philosophy of education, was a member of a committee set up to advise Government curriculum authors on changes to secondary schooling for 11 to 14-year-olds. The reforms caused a row when they were unveiled last year for sidelining large swathes of subject content in favour of lessons on issues such as climate change and managing debt.
Professor White wants ministers to encourage schools to shift away from single-subject teaching to "theme or project-based learning". Pupils would still cover some content but would be encouraged to meet a series of personal aims. The curriculum already states some of these but is "hampered" by the continued primacy of subjects. The aims include fostering a model pupil who "values personal relationships, is a responsible and caring citizen, is entrepreneurial, able to manage risk and committed to sustainable development".
Critics claim theme-based work is distracting and can lead to gaps in pupils' knowledge. Tory schools spokesman Nick Gibb said Professor White's view was "deeply corrosive". He added: "In the world we are living in, we need people who are better educated, not more poorly educated, more knowledgeable about the world, not less so. "This anti-knowledge, anti-subject ideology is deeply damaging to our education system. It is this sort of thinking that has led to the promotion of discredited reading methods, the erosion of three separate sciences and the decline of mathematics skills. "I just find it astonishing that someone with his extreme views has been allowed to advise the Government on education policy."
Source
No to talk therapy
Eysenck showed the uselessness of talk therapy in the 1940s but it is a monster that refuses to die
Britain's traditional stiff upper lip may be a better strategy for dealing with shock than letting your feelings spill out, a new study claims. The popular assumption is that talking about a terrifying experience, such as a terrorist attack or natural disaster, can be therapeutic and helpful. But new evidence suggests "getting it off your chest" may not be the right thing to do.
Psychologists in the US used an online survey to test people's responses to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Those who chose to express their thoughts and feelings were compared with those who did not over a two-year period. To their surprise, individuals who bottled up their feelings ended up better off. They suffered fewer negative mental and physical health symptoms than people who were willing to talk.
The results have important implications for expectations about how people should react to collective trauma that affects a whole community or nation, said the researchers. It also called into question the pleas made to people caught up in shocking events to come forward and "open up". After last year’s Virginia Tech University shootings in the US, numerous "media-doc" psychiatrists told how important it was for the students to express their feelings.
Dr Mark Seery, from the University of Buffalo, New York State, who led the new research, said: "This perfectly exemplifies the assumption in popular culture, and even in clinical practice, that people need to talk in order to overcome a collective trauma. "Instead, we should be telling people there is likely nothing wrong if they do not want to express their thoughts and feelings after experiencing a collective trauma. "In fact, they can cope quite successfully and, according to our results, are likely to be better off than someone who does want to express his or her feelings." The findings are published in the June issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Dr Seery stressed it would be wrong to say people recovering from trauma should never express their feelings. "It's important to remember that not everyone copes with events in the same way, and in the immediate aftermath of a collective trauma, it is perfectly healthy to not want to express one’s thoughts and feelings," he said.
Source
Another comment:
It would be hard to pinpoint exactly the death of the British stiff upper lip, but I would hazard it happened around the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. What with hours of television shows devoted to personal problems and acres of self-help manuals filling the shelves, its demise had been coming for some time; but the Princess's death opened the floodgates and we haven't stopped having sizeable feelings from that day.
Feelings, of course, are often quite unavoidable. Equally, though, they are a rather cumbersome replacement for thoughts. Yet people increasingly believe that if they can only say what they feel, then all anxieties will magically vanish.
Not so, according to this month's issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. It turns out that - contrary to every mother's advice, and every episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show - there are serious health benefits to be enjoyed from bottling things up. Not speaking about one's worries is a reliable way of getting over them; while the highly profitable culture of Yak Yak Yak has done quite the opposite, making people altogether more worried about the bad things that have happened, or are happening, or are likely to happen in the next 50 years.
Laying it all out on the table over a nice cup of tea was nothing short of a health hazard: it might have offered the instant sensation of a burden lessened, but doctors now believe that too much talk about worries can exacerbate them to the point where they seem out of control.
Science and I don't often agree - which is good news for science and bad news for me - but I've been arguing for the return of the stiff upper lip for some time. I hate all those TV programmes where people line up on stage to ask their daddy why he didn't love them enough.
For a start, one can usually understand quite quickly why the daddy didn't, and second (perhaps more scientifically) the people on those shows don't seem to benefit from the spectacle of unburdening.
In the old days, when people's daddies didn't love them enough, they felt a bit sad about it and tried to do better with their own children. Or they sought ways to bear it.
Bear it! Now there's an outmoded concept. Surely there's something to be said for gearing oneself up for a bit of disappointment in life, to say nothing of pain, rather than bleating every time you realise that a perfect life is not something that follows on naturally from excessive moaning.
Yet misery memoirs are now among the nation's national tonics, even though any number of them have proved to be works of fiction aimed at a gullible and needy public. Tonics, in my view, are something best taken with a glass of gin and a slice of lemon, helping one towards the refreshing conclusion that solutions to intractable problems might often be found in a combination of acceptance and forgetting, as opposed to endless wallowing.
Being "self-aware" - ie, droning on about feelings - has, among other things, threatened to kill the art of conversation and normal social interaction. The proper response to, "How do you do?" is "How do you do?", not, "Well, actually, I have a tummy-ache," or, "I am prey to unbearable anxieties about my childlessness".
It used to be considered insufferably self-regarding to answer any polite query about one's health with anything other than a cheery, "Fine, thank you," even if one were riddled with necrotizing fasciitis and had mere moments to live. Today, anyone who inquires about anyone else's well-being needs to brace themselves for an onslaught of unlovely detail.
While it is rather sad if your mummy never kissed you goodnight - and such sadness can lead to great heights of human expression, see Proust - too much wallowing can cheapen emotion, and common complaints transform into little arias of self-importance.
You'll notice that the expression "sob story" has recently fallen out of common parlance and that's because everybody is now assumed to have one: you can't turn on the radio without hearing some allegedly successful person wailing about the fact that there was never a sweetie in their tuck box.
How much more impressive (and heartening, and a real tonic) it is to come across people who have surmounted incredible difficulties and can still get on with their lives. People in wheelchairs find love; people with no voice become politicians and speak for masses - with nary a complaint or a memoir along the way - while every day we are invited to commune with some perfectly endowed individual who wants us to feel her pain about not being able to find a boyfriend.
The stiff upper lip doesn't seek to deny sadness, but rather acknowledges it quietly, takes control of it, and allows one to survive and move on. The person who ends each telephone conversation - with everyone from their mother to their plumber - with "Love You" is not necessarily the supremely well-adjusted hero you might think. This is to put sentimentality before real feeling; sometimes holding back is simply a way of allowing your emotions their true weight.
For the sake of your health, get buttoned up, though please don't expect to win any national talent contests if you do so.
Source
SOME SANITY COMES TO THE GUARDIAN
The Guardian, as we all know, is a particularly fine repository of intellectualized masturbation where `global warming' is concerned, full of deep desires to wash away the false consciousness of the masses, and for us all to be made to alter our evil ways. As ever, Aunty Polly is on full Guardianista message in her column today [Polly Toynbee: `Any fat goose fretting over tax can boo this lot off course', The Guardian, June 3]:
"Taxes designed to change behaviour are always unfair ... That's how it must be if you seriously want people to stop ... gas guzzling. Inequality has to be fixed in other ways, through tax redistribution, fair pay or fuel-hardship handouts. High food prices too will need more tax redistribution to protect the poor. A serious green policy would fix energy prices at a guaranteed constant high to make everyone use less and to make green technologies economically enticing for investors - and make incomes fairer."
"To make everyone" - just note that authoritarian language, and this is only one paragraph. But, for Our Polly, the Government is a failure - it is not functioning: "Governments that lose their nerve make bad decisions. Watch while Brown and his cabinet cave in to the crocodile tears of the driving lobby. If some hard-hit drivers need special help, give it to them. If people think green tax is a con then hypothecate the takings to public transport and carbon reduction. But if Labour throws overboard more of its own budget in a frenzy of tax bribes, it's all over."
The Toynbees of this world are always wanting to employ taxes to control the people's behaviour with respect to something or other, to reverse our false consciousness or to hypothecate the tax takings to their own favourite causes, while, of course, making it hurt a bit. They like that. The streak of puritanism runs deep. And, of course, in very specific circumstances, where the public also perceives benefits, targeted laws (e.g. banning the use of mobile `phones while driving), rather than punitive taxes, can work to some degree.
Nevertheless, despite twenty years of bien pensant propaganda and hysteria, the public are not on board where `global warming' is concerned, as I know personally from my many speaking engagements around the country. Fundamentally, they have too much down-to-earth common sense about the basic economics and politics involved. This was the theme picked up yesterday by David Cox, who encouragingly brings a saner voice on this issue to The Guardian [`Cooling on warming', The Guardian, June 2]:
"Remember that global warming thingy? The idea was that we're wrecking the climate by pumping out greenhouse gases, and that we've jolly well got to change our wicked ways. Virtually the entire political, academic and media establishment threw its might behind this notion. Huge quantities of hot air were pumped out in its name, and many tonnes of pollutants expelled by planes carrying concerned dignitaries to global conferences.
There was, however, a problem: people didn't seem too keen to abandon driving, flying, meat eating, patio heating or even buying tungsten light bulbs ... We're prepared to make sanctimonious gestures and attend the occasional concert of clapped-out superstars' appalling music. But we're not apparently prepared to sacrifice our welfare or our lifestyles, and we've been letting our rulers know. "
Cox thus points us in a rather different direction from the usual Guardianista obsession with authoritarian controls, punitive taxes, and slaying the dragon of false consciousness: "Perhaps, it's time to get real ... The answer is surely to switch our efforts away from trying to change human behaviour towards other approaches to the problem."
What a heresy! You mean people may, in the main, choose themselves how to live, and we might actually adopt technological solutions and adaptive processes that are little more than "... a sinful attempt to divert attention from the hairshirt remedies on which the prophets of doom have insisted."
Cox is, of course, correct. If we were wise, we should indeed be "taking proper steps to adapt to future climate change ... Yet, we're hardly even trying to develop new kinds of flood defence or drought-resistant crops. Why should we, while policy-makers assume that we're going to head-off warming by reducing our consumption of energy?" Thus Cox concludes: "It's surely time for a change of tack. Or should we just wring our hands?"
It is good to see sense creeping into The Guardian. Climate change has never been about the `science', but about economic and political choices in response to inexorable change. To say that the climate is "changing" (it always has, and it always will), and that humans have some impact on climate, are both little more than truisms, and far too much media energy has been wasted on debating them. I am bored to the teeth with the minutiae of this debate, which adds nothing to that simple truth - climate changes. Full stop. End of story.
What truly matters are our economic and political approaches to change. And herein lies the worst, and potentially the most dangerous, mistake made by Polly and her ilk. Trying to control climate change predictably is neither feasible nor economically sensible; in other words, mitigation is an economic and political dead end. It can't be done, and, politically, it won't be done. This is why Cox is sensible. It is also why the current politics of `global warming' are doomed to failure, and why poor Aunty Polly will not get her way.
The only rational approach to climate change is to maintain strong, flexible economies; to build and to plan with the `normal' extremes of climate in mind (this is done all too rarely, even now); to support research into every aspect of agronomy in order to help us to cope with all sorts and conditions of climate; to promote practical energy; to support development and trade so that the poor gain more innate resistance and flexibility in the face of change; and, as a world, to work out ways in which adaptation may work in poor countries, as well as in rich countries. The rest is sound and fury, signifying little.
This approach is above all realistic, but it also allows for freedom. It further means that we will not be caught out by foolishly assuming just one climate trend (remember the English gardeners who were told to plant drought-resistant plants and cacti, and then the country flooded).
But, and this is important, it also tells the Aunty Ps of this world where to go with their ideas of puritanical control. Sadly, `global warming' has appealed to too many authoritarian souls who simply want to employ it to promote their own agendas, from evangelical Christians to Old Marxists, and to Guardian journalists who are desperate to find something to bind the human soul.
Source
At the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, they hate people. And animals die because their hostility chases away many potential carers. Reminiscent of all the animals that America's PETA kills. Although the RSPCA is a voluntary organization, legislation has given them certain powers and they use that to hurt people if they can. Too bad about the animals
The lady looked up at me sourly. "You're ten minutes too late". They said it would be OK, I pleaded; ten past three - I did ring to check. You see, it's quite hard to find the time and I don't know when... "3pm", she said sharply. "There's no one available to speak to you now." I looked at the bevy of staff loitering around behind the desk, doing nothing much. One woman caught my eye sympathetically. "You can have a quick look round", Ms Timetable said. "Then come back another time."
And then what? "Then you fill in a form." Could I do that now? "No, because there's no one available to interview you." I glanced again at all the staff behind her. Maybe I could fill in the form and leave it? You know, cut out another visit? It was a three-hour round trip, after all. "You have to fill it in with us." Then what "Then they come and visit you at home, see if your house is suitable. And then you can come back and see the dogs..."
I gave up. This was the second RSPCA animal shelter that I had tried to adopt from - the first being unwilling even to let us look around. And three three-hour trips to this joyless centre of bureaucracy, where animals might be tended, but humans are treated with disdain, without the promise of so much as a hamster at the end of it, was more than I could bear.
Then there was the child problem. I had a four-year-old. And the RSPCA will not allow any child under 5 to have a dog; not even if she'll be 4 by the time that it arrives. Except in special circumstances. Which were? No one would tell me. I had to jump through their hoops first, with the almost certain promise of rejection at the end of it.
It's funny how many RSPCA refuseniks you come across once you become one yourself. There was the man who was told that he could have a cat only if he built platforms under the skylights in his London flat - in case the cat climbed across the roof and fell through the window. Or the woman in a rural area who was advised to heighten her fence to 20ft, because some cats like to jump high. And a mother (the owner of two happy dogs) in Norfolk who simply screamed: "RSPCA? Forget it!"
When you see the "Pet Adoption Week" campaign being launched by the RSPCA next week, with Badger the starving terrier who was rescued by a television presenter, remember these stories.
I wouldn't normally have bothered to remark on this. If the charity wants to put down more animals than is necessary, that's its business. Its, and the people who fund it: the RSPCA has an annual income of more than 100 million pounds, and about 200 million in assets, plus many millions more in its 174 branches around the country (the one that I looked up, Solent, had 3.8 million tucked away). The British give more to animal charities than to charities for the disabled. One donkey sanctuary in Devon has higher income than all the main charities fighting abuse against women combined. Still, your business. Give money to what you like.
But now the RSPCA, in its joylessness, is telling schools that they can no longer have pets. Research by the charity has found that a quarter of schools own pets, ranging from a hermit crab to a horse. Hurrah! A small piece of chaos, of life, amid the regimented drilling that we call school. Not for much longer - the RSPCA believes there is a danger that the kids might be too noisy, or the lighting conditions could be wrong, and that the classroom pet may receive variable care from different families at evenings or weekends.
If the RSPCA has its way, no more generations of kids will be taught to care for the school guinea pig or rabbit, or hermit crab; no more learning responsibility and respect for animals, no feeling the joy of holding a live thing in their hands. Laughably, the charity suggests that schools should get a soft toy instead to teach children about animal welfare. This is no joke. They really do want to stop it. The charity has sent all schools a letter warning them of their duties under the draconian Animal Welfare Act introduced at its own urging two years ago. That Act imposed a duty of care on any adult in charge of a pet, or any adult responsible for a child who is in possession of an animal.
Now the RSPCA has told schools to name a single person responsible for the rabbit's welfare, so that they can hold that person to account. The 2006 Act gave uniformed RSPCA officers the right to enter non-domestic properties without a warrant (they can enter your home only with a warrant, but they like people to believe otherwise) to check for animal rights abuses. Find a hamster being teased by Harry and the nominated teacher could face up to a year in jail. We must not let these people bully the life out of schools.
I went to a different animal sanctuary in the end. They sent over Dave to see whether I might be able to have a cat (I was running with the cat idea by then). A morose individual, like so many animal obsessives, Dave carefully checked for feline dangers, telling me to be sure to keep the cat shut indoors at night in case it got run over. Isn't depriving a cat of the night a bit like depriving a human being of light? Night-time hunting is what a cat does.
But then, I'm just someone who likes animals. I'm not an obsessive. I think that's healthy. I like humans too. There seems to be a distinction between being a human and being an "animal lover" akin to the difference between riding a bicycle and being a "cyclist". The militants are similarly at a loss for any sense of humour or humanity. In the end, we bought a puppy. Please don't tell the RSPCA.
Source
'Children happier under care of grandparents'
No! Force them into government run pre-schools and kindergartens! That's what the British and other Leftist governments are planning anyway
Academics at Oxford University and the Institute of Education, London, found that grandparents can help young children because they often have more time to spend with them than working parents. They are good at solving their problems as well as discussing their future plans. The survey of more than 1,500 children also discovered that grandparents could help keep them calm during crises such as divorce. Researchers found that one grandmother in three regularly looked after a grandchild, while 40 per cent helped out occasionally. But they believe that more grandparents should become involved in care to improve their grandchildren's well-being, and that the Government should do more to recognise their importance to society.
Prof Ann Buchanan, the director of the Centre for Research into Parenting and Children in the Department of Social Policy and Social Work at Oxford University, said: "What was especially interesting was the link between involved grandparents and adolescent well-being. Closeness was not enough: only grandparents who got stuck in had this positive impact on their grandchildren." The study's findings will be discussed at the annual meeting of the Grandparents' Association in London on Wednesday.
The survey encountered one teenager who claimed that his grandmother "taught us to read and write", and another whose grandparents discussed with him not only what GCSEs to take but what universities he should apply to and what career to take. A 12-year-old girl said her grandmother comforted her when she was being bullied at school. Grandparents who were healthy, lived in less-deprived areas and had regular contact with their grandchildren were found to have the most involvement in their upbringing.
The children questioned said it did not matter how far away their grandparents lived, because they could keep in touch using technology such as mobile phones and email.
Source
Islamic extremists should get therapy, British government tells local councils
Police and councils have been told to avoid putting some Islamic extremists through the criminal justice system
Members of extremist groups have have not "clearly" committed a crime would receive therapy and counselling under new Government plans to "deradicalise" religious fanatics. The Home Office is to announce an extra 12.5 million pounds to support new initiatives to try to stop extremism spreading. The central element of the Home Office plan is a new national "deradicalisation" programme that would persuade converts to violent and extremist causes to change their views. Controversially, the new plan makes clear that people who fall under the influence of violent organisations will not automatically face prosecution.
The Government says the presumption should now be that individuals who have not yet committed a crime would face therapy and counselling from community groups instead of being sanctioned. Documents being distributed to local councils explain that many people who get drawn into extremism have often suffered some sort of personal trauma or crisis that makes them vulnerable to exploitation. "We do not want to put through the criminal justice system those who are vulnerable to, or are being drawn into, violent extremism unless they have clearly committed an offence," a Home Office report says. "It is vital that individuals and communities understand this and have the confidence to use the support structures that we shall be developing."
A Home Office spokesman today insisted radicals who break the law will still be prosecuted: A spokesman said: "The police and the Criminal Justice Service will still those who prosecute people who commit offences and the guidance makes absolutely clear this is about preventing people being drawn into criminality and rehabilitating those that have not been."
Most of the new funding will be set aside for grants to community groups that challenge the messages of violent extremists should be supported. The plan includes a suggestion that local councils should map their areas religion, surveying and recording the faiths and denominations of local residents. New guidelines for councils say: "A deeper understanding of local communities should be developed to help inform and focus the programme of action - this may include mapping denominational backgrounds and demographic and socio-economic factors."
The Home Office has told councils they must be prepared to ask police to vet anyone involved in projects that receive government anti-radicalisation funding. If a group is found to be promoting violent extremism, local agencies and the police should consider disrupting or removing funding, and deny access to public facilities, the document added.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "A key element of our strategy aims to stop people getting involved in extremist violence. "We are investing at local level to build resilient communities, which are equipped to confront violent extremism and support the most vulnerable individuals."
Shadow home secretary David Davis said of today's publication: "This is pointless when the Government is fuelling the problem it is seeking to solve with its draconian approach to 42 days."
Source
Drop 'middle-class' academic subjects says British schools adviser
Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school because they are "middle-class" creations, a Government adviser will claim today. Professor John White, who contributed to a controversial shake-up of the secondary curriculum, believes lessons should instead cover a series of personal skills. Pupils would no longer study history, geography and science but learn skills such as energy- saving and civic responsibility through projects and themes. He will outline his theories at a conference today staged by London's Institute of Education - to which he is affiliated - to mark the 20th anniversary of the national curriculum.
Last night, critics attacked his ideas as "deeply corrosive" and condemned the Government for allowing him to advise on a new curriculum. Professor White will claim ministers are already "moving in the right direction" towards realising his vision of replacing subjects with a series of personal aims for pupils. But he says they must go further because traditional subjects were invented by the middle classes and are "mere stepping stones to wealth". [And who would want that?]
The professor believes the origins of our subject-based education system can be traced back to 19th century middle-class values. While public schools focused largely on the classics, and elementary schools for the working class concentrated on the three Rs, middle-class schools taught a range of academic subjects. These included English, maths, history, geography, science and Latin or a modern language. They "fed into the idea of academic learning as the mark of a well-heeled middle- class", he said last night. The Tories then attempted to impose these middle-class values by introducing a traditional subject-based curriculum in 1988. But this "alienated many youngsters, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds", he claimed.
The professor, who specialises in philosophy of education, was a member of a committee set up to advise Government curriculum authors on changes to secondary schooling for 11 to 14-year-olds. The reforms caused a row when they were unveiled last year for sidelining large swathes of subject content in favour of lessons on issues such as climate change and managing debt.
Professor White wants ministers to encourage schools to shift away from single-subject teaching to "theme or project-based learning". Pupils would still cover some content but would be encouraged to meet a series of personal aims. The curriculum already states some of these but is "hampered" by the continued primacy of subjects. The aims include fostering a model pupil who "values personal relationships, is a responsible and caring citizen, is entrepreneurial, able to manage risk and committed to sustainable development".
Critics claim theme-based work is distracting and can lead to gaps in pupils' knowledge. Tory schools spokesman Nick Gibb said Professor White's view was "deeply corrosive". He added: "In the world we are living in, we need people who are better educated, not more poorly educated, more knowledgeable about the world, not less so. "This anti-knowledge, anti-subject ideology is deeply damaging to our education system. It is this sort of thinking that has led to the promotion of discredited reading methods, the erosion of three separate sciences and the decline of mathematics skills. "I just find it astonishing that someone with his extreme views has been allowed to advise the Government on education policy."
Source
No to talk therapy
Eysenck showed the uselessness of talk therapy in the 1940s but it is a monster that refuses to die
Britain's traditional stiff upper lip may be a better strategy for dealing with shock than letting your feelings spill out, a new study claims. The popular assumption is that talking about a terrifying experience, such as a terrorist attack or natural disaster, can be therapeutic and helpful. But new evidence suggests "getting it off your chest" may not be the right thing to do.
Psychologists in the US used an online survey to test people's responses to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Those who chose to express their thoughts and feelings were compared with those who did not over a two-year period. To their surprise, individuals who bottled up their feelings ended up better off. They suffered fewer negative mental and physical health symptoms than people who were willing to talk.
The results have important implications for expectations about how people should react to collective trauma that affects a whole community or nation, said the researchers. It also called into question the pleas made to people caught up in shocking events to come forward and "open up". After last year’s Virginia Tech University shootings in the US, numerous "media-doc" psychiatrists told how important it was for the students to express their feelings.
Dr Mark Seery, from the University of Buffalo, New York State, who led the new research, said: "This perfectly exemplifies the assumption in popular culture, and even in clinical practice, that people need to talk in order to overcome a collective trauma. "Instead, we should be telling people there is likely nothing wrong if they do not want to express their thoughts and feelings after experiencing a collective trauma. "In fact, they can cope quite successfully and, according to our results, are likely to be better off than someone who does want to express his or her feelings." The findings are published in the June issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Dr Seery stressed it would be wrong to say people recovering from trauma should never express their feelings. "It's important to remember that not everyone copes with events in the same way, and in the immediate aftermath of a collective trauma, it is perfectly healthy to not want to express one’s thoughts and feelings," he said.
Source
Another comment:
It would be hard to pinpoint exactly the death of the British stiff upper lip, but I would hazard it happened around the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. What with hours of television shows devoted to personal problems and acres of self-help manuals filling the shelves, its demise had been coming for some time; but the Princess's death opened the floodgates and we haven't stopped having sizeable feelings from that day.
Feelings, of course, are often quite unavoidable. Equally, though, they are a rather cumbersome replacement for thoughts. Yet people increasingly believe that if they can only say what they feel, then all anxieties will magically vanish.
Not so, according to this month's issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. It turns out that - contrary to every mother's advice, and every episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show - there are serious health benefits to be enjoyed from bottling things up. Not speaking about one's worries is a reliable way of getting over them; while the highly profitable culture of Yak Yak Yak has done quite the opposite, making people altogether more worried about the bad things that have happened, or are happening, or are likely to happen in the next 50 years.
Laying it all out on the table over a nice cup of tea was nothing short of a health hazard: it might have offered the instant sensation of a burden lessened, but doctors now believe that too much talk about worries can exacerbate them to the point where they seem out of control.
Science and I don't often agree - which is good news for science and bad news for me - but I've been arguing for the return of the stiff upper lip for some time. I hate all those TV programmes where people line up on stage to ask their daddy why he didn't love them enough.
For a start, one can usually understand quite quickly why the daddy didn't, and second (perhaps more scientifically) the people on those shows don't seem to benefit from the spectacle of unburdening.
In the old days, when people's daddies didn't love them enough, they felt a bit sad about it and tried to do better with their own children. Or they sought ways to bear it.
Bear it! Now there's an outmoded concept. Surely there's something to be said for gearing oneself up for a bit of disappointment in life, to say nothing of pain, rather than bleating every time you realise that a perfect life is not something that follows on naturally from excessive moaning.
Yet misery memoirs are now among the nation's national tonics, even though any number of them have proved to be works of fiction aimed at a gullible and needy public. Tonics, in my view, are something best taken with a glass of gin and a slice of lemon, helping one towards the refreshing conclusion that solutions to intractable problems might often be found in a combination of acceptance and forgetting, as opposed to endless wallowing.
Being "self-aware" - ie, droning on about feelings - has, among other things, threatened to kill the art of conversation and normal social interaction. The proper response to, "How do you do?" is "How do you do?", not, "Well, actually, I have a tummy-ache," or, "I am prey to unbearable anxieties about my childlessness".
It used to be considered insufferably self-regarding to answer any polite query about one's health with anything other than a cheery, "Fine, thank you," even if one were riddled with necrotizing fasciitis and had mere moments to live. Today, anyone who inquires about anyone else's well-being needs to brace themselves for an onslaught of unlovely detail.
While it is rather sad if your mummy never kissed you goodnight - and such sadness can lead to great heights of human expression, see Proust - too much wallowing can cheapen emotion, and common complaints transform into little arias of self-importance.
You'll notice that the expression "sob story" has recently fallen out of common parlance and that's because everybody is now assumed to have one: you can't turn on the radio without hearing some allegedly successful person wailing about the fact that there was never a sweetie in their tuck box.
How much more impressive (and heartening, and a real tonic) it is to come across people who have surmounted incredible difficulties and can still get on with their lives. People in wheelchairs find love; people with no voice become politicians and speak for masses - with nary a complaint or a memoir along the way - while every day we are invited to commune with some perfectly endowed individual who wants us to feel her pain about not being able to find a boyfriend.
The stiff upper lip doesn't seek to deny sadness, but rather acknowledges it quietly, takes control of it, and allows one to survive and move on. The person who ends each telephone conversation - with everyone from their mother to their plumber - with "Love You" is not necessarily the supremely well-adjusted hero you might think. This is to put sentimentality before real feeling; sometimes holding back is simply a way of allowing your emotions their true weight.
For the sake of your health, get buttoned up, though please don't expect to win any national talent contests if you do so.
Source
SOME SANITY COMES TO THE GUARDIAN
The Guardian, as we all know, is a particularly fine repository of intellectualized masturbation where `global warming' is concerned, full of deep desires to wash away the false consciousness of the masses, and for us all to be made to alter our evil ways. As ever, Aunty Polly is on full Guardianista message in her column today [Polly Toynbee: `Any fat goose fretting over tax can boo this lot off course', The Guardian, June 3]:
"Taxes designed to change behaviour are always unfair ... That's how it must be if you seriously want people to stop ... gas guzzling. Inequality has to be fixed in other ways, through tax redistribution, fair pay or fuel-hardship handouts. High food prices too will need more tax redistribution to protect the poor. A serious green policy would fix energy prices at a guaranteed constant high to make everyone use less and to make green technologies economically enticing for investors - and make incomes fairer."
"To make everyone" - just note that authoritarian language, and this is only one paragraph. But, for Our Polly, the Government is a failure - it is not functioning: "Governments that lose their nerve make bad decisions. Watch while Brown and his cabinet cave in to the crocodile tears of the driving lobby. If some hard-hit drivers need special help, give it to them. If people think green tax is a con then hypothecate the takings to public transport and carbon reduction. But if Labour throws overboard more of its own budget in a frenzy of tax bribes, it's all over."
The Toynbees of this world are always wanting to employ taxes to control the people's behaviour with respect to something or other, to reverse our false consciousness or to hypothecate the tax takings to their own favourite causes, while, of course, making it hurt a bit. They like that. The streak of puritanism runs deep. And, of course, in very specific circumstances, where the public also perceives benefits, targeted laws (e.g. banning the use of mobile `phones while driving), rather than punitive taxes, can work to some degree.
Nevertheless, despite twenty years of bien pensant propaganda and hysteria, the public are not on board where `global warming' is concerned, as I know personally from my many speaking engagements around the country. Fundamentally, they have too much down-to-earth common sense about the basic economics and politics involved. This was the theme picked up yesterday by David Cox, who encouragingly brings a saner voice on this issue to The Guardian [`Cooling on warming', The Guardian, June 2]:
"Remember that global warming thingy? The idea was that we're wrecking the climate by pumping out greenhouse gases, and that we've jolly well got to change our wicked ways. Virtually the entire political, academic and media establishment threw its might behind this notion. Huge quantities of hot air were pumped out in its name, and many tonnes of pollutants expelled by planes carrying concerned dignitaries to global conferences.
There was, however, a problem: people didn't seem too keen to abandon driving, flying, meat eating, patio heating or even buying tungsten light bulbs ... We're prepared to make sanctimonious gestures and attend the occasional concert of clapped-out superstars' appalling music. But we're not apparently prepared to sacrifice our welfare or our lifestyles, and we've been letting our rulers know. "
Cox thus points us in a rather different direction from the usual Guardianista obsession with authoritarian controls, punitive taxes, and slaying the dragon of false consciousness: "Perhaps, it's time to get real ... The answer is surely to switch our efforts away from trying to change human behaviour towards other approaches to the problem."
What a heresy! You mean people may, in the main, choose themselves how to live, and we might actually adopt technological solutions and adaptive processes that are little more than "... a sinful attempt to divert attention from the hairshirt remedies on which the prophets of doom have insisted."
Cox is, of course, correct. If we were wise, we should indeed be "taking proper steps to adapt to future climate change ... Yet, we're hardly even trying to develop new kinds of flood defence or drought-resistant crops. Why should we, while policy-makers assume that we're going to head-off warming by reducing our consumption of energy?" Thus Cox concludes: "It's surely time for a change of tack. Or should we just wring our hands?"
It is good to see sense creeping into The Guardian. Climate change has never been about the `science', but about economic and political choices in response to inexorable change. To say that the climate is "changing" (it always has, and it always will), and that humans have some impact on climate, are both little more than truisms, and far too much media energy has been wasted on debating them. I am bored to the teeth with the minutiae of this debate, which adds nothing to that simple truth - climate changes. Full stop. End of story.
What truly matters are our economic and political approaches to change. And herein lies the worst, and potentially the most dangerous, mistake made by Polly and her ilk. Trying to control climate change predictably is neither feasible nor economically sensible; in other words, mitigation is an economic and political dead end. It can't be done, and, politically, it won't be done. This is why Cox is sensible. It is also why the current politics of `global warming' are doomed to failure, and why poor Aunty Polly will not get her way.
The only rational approach to climate change is to maintain strong, flexible economies; to build and to plan with the `normal' extremes of climate in mind (this is done all too rarely, even now); to support research into every aspect of agronomy in order to help us to cope with all sorts and conditions of climate; to promote practical energy; to support development and trade so that the poor gain more innate resistance and flexibility in the face of change; and, as a world, to work out ways in which adaptation may work in poor countries, as well as in rich countries. The rest is sound and fury, signifying little.
This approach is above all realistic, but it also allows for freedom. It further means that we will not be caught out by foolishly assuming just one climate trend (remember the English gardeners who were told to plant drought-resistant plants and cacti, and then the country flooded).
But, and this is important, it also tells the Aunty Ps of this world where to go with their ideas of puritanical control. Sadly, `global warming' has appealed to too many authoritarian souls who simply want to employ it to promote their own agendas, from evangelical Christians to Old Marxists, and to Guardian journalists who are desperate to find something to bind the human soul.
Source
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Top British university ditches meaningless government High School diplomas and sets its own entrance exam
One of Britain's leading universities is to introduce an entrance exam for all students applying to study there from 2010 because it believes that A levels no longer provide it with a viable way to select the best students. Sir Richard Sykes, Rector of Imperial College, London, suggested that grade inflation at A level meant that so many students now got straight As that it had become almost "worthless" as a way of discriminating between the talented and the well drilled. Last year one in four A-level marks was a grade A and 10 per cent of A-level students achieved at least three As.
"We can't rely on A levels any more. Everybody who applies has got three or four As. They [A levels] are not very useful. The International Baccalaureate is useful but again this is just a benchmark," Sir Richard said. He added: "We are doing this not because we don't believe in A levels, but we can't use the A level any more as a discriminator factor." The move will make Imperial, which specialises in science and engineering and ranks third in the UK after Oxford and Cambridge in The Times Good University Guide, the first university to introduce a university-wide entrance exam since Oxford scrapped its own version in 1995.
Some universities, including Imperial, use entrance tests to select students for medical schools and both Oxford and Cambridge use specific subject-based entrance tests for certain degree courses. But there is no other institution in the UK offering a university-wide test.
Sir Richard said that the test would be piloted this summer for use in selecting students for entry in 2010 to Imperial, which has 12,000 full-time students. Apart from candidates for medical degrees, who must sit an entrance test called the BMAT, all Imperial applicants will sit the same exam regardless of which subject they intend to study.
The tests would seek to examine students for their innate ability and problem solving skills rather than subject knowledge. "We are going to have entrance exams that will test ability. We are looking for students who really will benefit from an IC education. The examination will look for IQ, intelligence, creativity and innovation and will not be too dependent on rote learning," Sir Richard said. But he added that students would not be able simply to stop doing A_levels, as the university would still require evidence that they had studied their chosen subjects in depth. Sir Richard said that Imperial had been in talks with other universities about the entrance test and suggested that eventually it may be introduced nationally.
He also told the Independent Schools' Council annual conference in London that many students in state schools were short-changed by the state education system, which educated 93 per cent of pupils. He suggested that the Government should offer scholarships to enable the brightest pupils to attend fee-paying schools. "We have got to do something radical if we are to save the children in our schools who are just not getting the education they deserve. We have in this country one of the best secondary educations in the world, but only a few percentage of people benefit from it," he said.
Imperial's new exam is bound to increase pressure for the introduction into Britain of American-style scholastic aptitude tests (SATs) as the key qualification for university entrance.
Source
Government money failing to get British children to play sport
Can this stupid socialist government do ANYTHING useful? Many schools do not even OFFER the target amount of sport!
Special measures to get children to do two hours of sport each week are failing, Government figures indicate. One in three pupils over the age of 14 does not do the recommended amount of exercise in school each week according to figures released by the Liberal Democrats.
The Government and the National Lottery have dedicated 1.6 billion pounds to combat childhood obesity by boosting PE lessons since 2003 but over half of secondary schools still do not provide time for children to exercise for two hours a week. Gordon Brown recently pledged a further 100 million to get children to exercise for up to five hours during the school week.
Up to 900,000 pupils are missing out on the correct amount of sport causing fears about the future health of the nation the Liberal Democrats say. In 2002 Tony Blair's government recommended that all children should do at least two hours of exercise each week at school.
Don Foster, Liberal Democrat spokesman for Culture, Media and Sport, said: "Billions of pounds of taxpayers money have been pumped into school facilities, so parents are entitled to expect that their children are given a decent opportunity to use them. "With the 2012 Olympics on their way we should be encouraging the next generation of athletes. But these figures suggest the Government is set to squander the sporting legacy it could offer."
The new figures, released in response to a Parliamentary Question posed by the Liberal Democrats suggest that 33 per cent of all school children aged 14-16 do not do two hours of sport a week. Sixty five per cent of secondary schools and 32 per cent of primary schools fail to offer the required amount of sport each week.
Source
PROFESSOR DESCRIBES THE BISHOP OF STAFFORD AS A 'DEMONOLOGIST'
A professor and author at the University of Kent has labelled Gordon Mursell, the Bishop of Stafford, as a 'modern-day demonologist': Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at Kent and author of 'Invitation to Terror', criticises the Bishop of Stafford for comparing climate change sceptics to Josef Fritzl
Gordon Mursell, the Bishop of Stafford in England, is a man of the cloth. He is also a member of a posse of disoriented clerics, who have become so estranged from morally literate theology that they have embraced a new brand of demonology. At a time when moralisers cannot give any real meaning to classical ideas about right and wrong, they try instead to make people feel guilty about their impact on the environment. So instead of targeting those traditional demons - Satan, say, or witchcraft - Gordon Mursell attacks climate change deniers.
In a parish newsletter, the bishop said that people who refuse to join the fight against global warming are like Josef Fritzl, the insane criminal in Austria who locked his daughter and her children in a cellar for 24 years. For Mursell, being sceptical about the conventional wisdom on climate change is akin to the monstrous crime committed by Fritzl. He says: `You could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is.'
Mursell has not called for climate change deniers to be burned at the stake - yet. But the idea that they should be punished is implicit in his message. For some time now, religious and moral entrepreneurs have been searching zealously for demons. Some have argued that AIDS is God's way of punishing immoral sexual behaviour. Big catastrophes such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina have been portrayed as retribution for people's degenerate and sinful behaviour. One Christian writer described Katrina as `the fist of God'.
However, these religious-tinged fantasies tend not to resonate with the public imagination. In contrast, focusing on the current anxieties about the future of the planet seems to be a far more fruitful way of rediscovering Satan. And the linking of the crime of child abuse with scepticism about today's received green wisdom exemplifies the new demonology.
How demonologists work
Demonologists are moral entrepreneurs. They turn the problems faced by our communities into moral threats. One of the most striking illustrations of such demonology was the plague that is frequently referred to as the Black Death. The transformation of a fast-spreading disease into an epidemic of evil continues to excite people's imagination and fears today. According to one study, it was `only after Europeans had experienced this epidemic' that `they were ready to accept witchcraft as a real threat' (1). The moralisation of what is referred to as the `AIDS epidemic' shows that modern plagues are still used to convey a culturally meaningful message about `evil'.
Demonologists are intensely hostile to anyone who questions the way they interpret and talk about threats. As moral entrepreneurs, they regard their opponents, not only as irresponsible, but also as potentially evil. From this standpoint, dissidence comes to be seen as an act of moral subversion. The moralising of hazards serves to shut down discussion. At the very least, anyone who questions claims about the alleged gravity of a threat facing mankind is depicted as the stooge or accomplice of a malevolent agenda.
The act of raising questions about a `warning' is now discussed as an insidious deed of denial. Increasingly, questioning things is seen as the moral equivalent of Holocaust Denial. In recent years, people who have questioned the warnings about climate change have been labelled `deniers'. The allusion to Holocaust Denial is clear. The implication of this moral condemnation of questioners - the denouncement of critics as `deniers' - is that disbelief itself is a sign of moral bankruptcy.
Believing in a statement of warning is considered to be morally principled; disbelieving the statement, or even just questioning it, is stigmatised as morally corrupt. This transformation of disbelief into a sin was also widespread during the witch-hunts that plagued Europe in earlier centuries. In the era of the witch-hunt, anyone who questioned the existence of demonic forces could be denounced as an `associate of Satan'. Such was the power and influence of demonologists that few were prepared to question the existence of witchcraft.
In the 1980s and 90s, American crusaders against Satanic Ritual Abuse adopted a similar approach. A report published by the California Social Services Committee on Child Abuse Prevention described the widespread `denial of the problem of ritualistic abuse' as one of the main barriers to tackling it. Campaigners frequently argued that such denial was the moral equivalent of the depraved act of abuse itself (2). If you questioned the idea that Satanic Ritual Abuse was a real existing threat, you could be charged with complicity in the crimes of child molestation.
The dogmatic demand to `believe' has become a kind of moral imperative. Moral entrepreneurs argue that victims have a `right to be believed'. So crusaders against Satanic Ritual Abuse attempt to disarm sceptics by insisting that the worst thing that can happen to victims of abuse is not to be believed. Patrick Casement, author of Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, tries to guilt-trip sceptics:
`It may be that some accounts which are reputed to be of "satanic" abuse are delusional, and the narrators may indeed be psychotic in some cases. But we must still face the awful fact that if some of these accounts are true, if we do not have the courage to see the truth that may be there. we may tacitly be allowing these practices to continue under the cover of secrecy, supported also by the almost universal refusal to believe that they could exist.' (3)
In other words, those who refuse to believe accusations of Satanic Ritual Abuse are themselves complicit in the act of victimisation. During the outbreak of the satanic abuse panic in Britain in the 1980s and 90s, zealous witch-hunters claimed that an `insidious and dangerous' disease was sweeping the country: that is, incredulity about the existence of ritual abuse. According to one account, `this contagion takes the comforting form of sceptical and rational inquiry, and its message is comforting, too: it is designed to protect "innocent family life" against a new urban myth of the satanic abuse of children.' (4)
Shutting down debate
Through vilifying their opponents, demonologists attempt to close down discussion and debate. Such intolerance towards alternative and dissident opinions betrays the powerful anti-democratic impulse underpinning contemporary demonology, best expressed most recently by the Bishop of Stafford.
This censorious attitude has all the worst features of religious zealotary, and it is strikingly similar to traditional demonology. Demonologists in pre-modern times argued that scepticism about witchcraft was a form of heresy that had to be punished. The Malleus Maleficarum, one of the most influential manuals for witch-hunters, noted that `the question arises whether people who hold that witches do not exist are to be regarded as notorious heretics, or whether they are to be regarded as gravely suspect of holding heretical opinions'. It then says: `The first opinion is the correct one' (5). This depiction of scepticism as a form of moral transgression is still around today.
Scepticism towards the received wisdom on global warming, or public health issues such as AIDS, is described as `denial' - and today, `denial' has been transformed into a generic evil. The denial phenomenon has become a kind of free-floating blasphemy, which can attach itself to a variety of issues and problems. One environmentalist writer argues that the `language of "climate change", "global warming", "human impacts" and "adaptation" are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse' (6).
The charge of denial has become a secular form of blasphemy. Recently, a book written by someone who is sceptical of today's prevailing environmentalist wisdom was dismissed with the following words: `The text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.' (7) This forced association of three highly charged issues - pollution, AIDS and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews - shows how denial has become an all-purpose form of blasphemy.
Once denial has been stigmatised, there are demands for it to be censored. Consider the current attempts to stifle anyone who questions the predictions of catastrophic climate change. Some advocate a policy of zero tolerance towards climate change deniers. `I have very limited patience with those who deny human responsibility for upper-atmosphere pollution and ozone depletion', says one moral crusader, then declaring: `There is no intellectual difference between the Lomborgians [those who adhere to the arguments of the `skeptical environmentalist', Bjorn Lomborg] who steadfastly refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming from scientists of unquestioned reputation, and the neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers.' (8)
Increasingly, the heretic is condemned because he has dared to question an authority that must never be questioned. Here, `overwhelming evidence' serves as the equivalent of revealed religious truth, and those who question `scientists of unquestioned reputation' - that is, the new priestly caste - are guilty of blasphemy.
Heresy-hunters who charge their opponents with `ecological denial' also warn that the `time for reason and reasonableness is running short' (9). Crusaders against denial don't only wish to silence their opponents. In the true tradition of heresy-hunting they also want to inflict punishment on those who deny the true faith. David Roberts, a journalist for the online magazine Grist, would like to see global warming deniers prosecuted like Nazi war criminals. In a vitriolic tone characteristic of dogmatic inquisitors, he argued: `We should have war crimes trials for these bastards. some sort of climate Nuremberg.' (10) At the very least, it seems, these `criminals' should be castigated as the moral equivalents of Josef Fritzl.
Thankfully, a demonologist like the Bishop of Strafford lacks the power to impose the kind of punishments that were dished out by earlier generations of heresy-hunters. But if it is not challenged, his denunciation of `deniers' will contribute to the consolidation of a censorious mood and climate of anxiety. History shows that crusades against heretics and demons have a nasty habit of disorienting society, and undermining civilised and humanist behaviour.
Source
CLIMATE CHANGE AT THE GUARDIAN
It now says that we should tackle climate change through research and adaptation instead of trying to transform human behaviour:
Remember that global warming thingy? The idea was that we're wrecking the climate by pumping out greenhouse gases, and that we've jolly well got to change our wicked ways. Virtually the entire political, academic and media establishment threw its might behind this notion. Huge quantities of hot air were pumped out in its name, and many tonnes of pollutants expelled by planes carrying concerned dignitaries to global conferences.
There was, however, a problem: people didn't seem too keen to abandon driving, flying, meat eating, patio heating or even buying tungsten lightbulbs. Governments were understandably wary of trying to force them. Then, hey presto! Magically, the market seemed to have solved the problem, simply by pushing up the price of fuel. Yet what's been the response of our rulers? A panicky drive to keep the carbon bonfire fuelled by digging out yet more oil and abandoning proposed taxes on emissions.
We should hardly be surprised. We live in a democracy (sort of), and those seeking to retain or attain power must take some note of the will of the people. It turns out that, although we of course care about future generations and the people of low-lying Pacific islands, most of us don't care all that much. We're prepared to make sanctimonious gestures and attend the occasional concert of clapped-out superstars' appalling music. But we're not apparently prepared to sacrifice our welfare or our lifestyles, and we've been letting our rulers know.
Our commitment to other great altruistic causes has proved similar in character. Poverty has not been made history, and the aged remain pretty much unhelped. Of course, there have always been those among us, from Roundheads and Spanish inquisitors to the Khmer Rouge and Mary Whitehouse, whose commitment to social transformation in the name of virtue has been rather more serious.
Often, as now, their programmes have depended on the co-option of an unwilling majority. Unfortunately, gulags, purges and the rack remain out of reach of our current climate puritans, though some of them seem to regret this. George Monbiot, to be sure, happily beseeches a brutal despot for assistance in this dark hour for him and his ilk.
Perhaps, it's time to get real. Climate change activists should come to appreciate what religious reformers, communist revolutionaries and other utopian visionaries have learned before them. You can't change human behaviour in the interests of the supposed greater good.
Nonetheless, warming hasn't gone away, even if its character is less clear-cut than has been suggested by those urging us to make obeisance to it. What should we do about it?
The answer is surely to switch our efforts away from trying to change human behaviour towards other approaches to the problem. The most obvious is technological research into methods of alleviating warming. Up until now, mentioning this route has been considered a sinful attempt to divert attention from the hairshirt remedies on which the prophets of doom have insisted. Perhaps partly as a result, such research is proving surprisingly skimpy.
The sun can provide us with far more energy than fossil fuels, yet efforts to crack the technological problems involved in turning the Sahara into the world's power station are less intense than you might imagine. Or, to take the opposite approach, we know that seeding the atmosphere with particles could reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, since our own particulate pollution used to achieve just this effect. Yet little attempt is being made to find out if efforts in this direction could ever be economic.
Perhaps such ideas will prove fanciful. Since they may, we should be taking proper steps to adapt to future climate change, as well as trying to prevent it. Warming may devastate some parts of the world, but it will enhance the prospects of others. Russia and Canada would benefit by populating their currently frozen expanses with eager would-be farmers displaced from the tropics. Preparing for such transfers would be a long and delicate process. We could be starting it now. Yet, we're hardly even trying to develop new kinds of flood defence or drought-resistant crops. Why should we, while policy-makers assume that we're going to head-off warming by reducing our consumption of energy?
It's surely time for a change of tack. Or should we just wring our hands?
Source
Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS hospitals
Private managers could be brought in to run failing hospitals under measures to tackle poor performance in the health service. Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, is to announce rigorous standards of quality, safety, cleanliness and financial management for all hospital trusts, making it easier for inadequate managers or chairmen to be dismissed without large payoffs, The Times has learnt. Under the controversial plan, which has strong backing from Gordon Brown, managers could be brought in from the private sector or from elsewhere in the NHS.
Ben Bradshaw, the Health Minister, told Channel 4 News last night: “What we’ve never done before is to allow the private sector to take over the running of a whole hospital in the form of a franchise, which is one of the options that would be included in this performance regime. What we know from our experience of involvement in other parts of the health service is that the private sector can bring different skills, different management skills, different techniques.”
Doctors, politicians and unions gave warning last night that the measures risked undermining the fundamental principles of the NHS. Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North and former chairman of the Commons’ Science committee, said: “The privatisation of the NHS is becoming less than subtle. This is a blatant snub to the health service.” A spokesman for the British Medical Association, the doctors’ union, said it would have “grave concerns if the private sector took over [NHS] management”. “There is already an immense amount of talent within the NHS – in leadership and management – and this should be nurtured to ensure NHS trusts do not find themselves in a position of failure in the first place.”
A key new performance measure will be levels of Clostridium difficile or MRSA infections. There are 20 trusts that are classified as “weak” in the Government’s ratings and they will come under early and tough scrutiny.
The plan has been adopted enthusiastically by the Prime Minister, who hopes to show that he will be as radical on public service reform as Tony Blair. During the Blair years Mr Brown was often accused of being an obstacle to change, and prevented Alan Milburn giving independence on borrowing to foundation hospitals.
Government sources said last night that Mr Johnson’s move would be the first of a series from Cabinet ministers aimed at improving public services. They promised stringent minimum standards “and real consequences for those who fail to meet them”. Managers and trust chairmen will have their contracts drawn to relate to their performance against the new standards. They face dismissal – without payoffs – if they are placed on a performance improvement plan and then fail to meet the deadlines set within it.
At the moment 30 trusts, out of 290, including mental health trusts, are responsible for 46 per cent of the cases of MRSA infection and 57 per cent of patients having to wait more than 18 weeks for their operation. A total of 20 trusts were rated as “weak” for both quality of services and use of resources in October, while there are also 16 trusts that are considered “financially challenged” because of long-term budget deficits.
A government source said last night: “We can proceed with the next stage of public sector reform only if we have tackled the failing hospitals and eliminated unfair variations in local services. But we can only do that if we have a stringent set of minimum standards and enforce them.”
Source
More brilliant British bureaucracy: "The Ministry of Defence has spent more than 500 million pounds [a billion dollars] on eight Chinook helicopters that have never been flown as a result of "one of the most incompetent procurements of all time", an audit has concluded. The helicopters have been sitting in a special air-conditioned shelter for the past seven years because of a "gold-standard cockup" that meant the machines' software could not be accessed. While commanders in Afghanistan have been crying out for extra helicopters, the Chinooks - which were supposed to fly missions for Special Forces - have been lying idle in hangars in the Wiltshire countryside".
Another privileged class in Britain -- cyclists: "A traffic-dodging dash the wrong way up a one-way street may be the tempting risk for many a frustrated cyclist. But it will no longer be against the law under an experiment designed to encourage more people to switch from four wheels to two. The change - which will simply legitimise what many cyclists, including David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, do already - will be welcomed by thousands of law-abiding riders who have to take long diversions around one-way systems. Motorists, however, might be taken by surprise after failing to spot new signs at entry points and could find themselves being held liable for a collision with a bicycle." [And a homosexual Muslim cyclist can do no wrong at all, of course]
One of Britain's leading universities is to introduce an entrance exam for all students applying to study there from 2010 because it believes that A levels no longer provide it with a viable way to select the best students. Sir Richard Sykes, Rector of Imperial College, London, suggested that grade inflation at A level meant that so many students now got straight As that it had become almost "worthless" as a way of discriminating between the talented and the well drilled. Last year one in four A-level marks was a grade A and 10 per cent of A-level students achieved at least three As.
"We can't rely on A levels any more. Everybody who applies has got three or four As. They [A levels] are not very useful. The International Baccalaureate is useful but again this is just a benchmark," Sir Richard said. He added: "We are doing this not because we don't believe in A levels, but we can't use the A level any more as a discriminator factor." The move will make Imperial, which specialises in science and engineering and ranks third in the UK after Oxford and Cambridge in The Times Good University Guide, the first university to introduce a university-wide entrance exam since Oxford scrapped its own version in 1995.
Some universities, including Imperial, use entrance tests to select students for medical schools and both Oxford and Cambridge use specific subject-based entrance tests for certain degree courses. But there is no other institution in the UK offering a university-wide test.
Sir Richard said that the test would be piloted this summer for use in selecting students for entry in 2010 to Imperial, which has 12,000 full-time students. Apart from candidates for medical degrees, who must sit an entrance test called the BMAT, all Imperial applicants will sit the same exam regardless of which subject they intend to study.
The tests would seek to examine students for their innate ability and problem solving skills rather than subject knowledge. "We are going to have entrance exams that will test ability. We are looking for students who really will benefit from an IC education. The examination will look for IQ, intelligence, creativity and innovation and will not be too dependent on rote learning," Sir Richard said. But he added that students would not be able simply to stop doing A_levels, as the university would still require evidence that they had studied their chosen subjects in depth. Sir Richard said that Imperial had been in talks with other universities about the entrance test and suggested that eventually it may be introduced nationally.
He also told the Independent Schools' Council annual conference in London that many students in state schools were short-changed by the state education system, which educated 93 per cent of pupils. He suggested that the Government should offer scholarships to enable the brightest pupils to attend fee-paying schools. "We have got to do something radical if we are to save the children in our schools who are just not getting the education they deserve. We have in this country one of the best secondary educations in the world, but only a few percentage of people benefit from it," he said.
Imperial's new exam is bound to increase pressure for the introduction into Britain of American-style scholastic aptitude tests (SATs) as the key qualification for university entrance.
Source
Government money failing to get British children to play sport
Can this stupid socialist government do ANYTHING useful? Many schools do not even OFFER the target amount of sport!
Special measures to get children to do two hours of sport each week are failing, Government figures indicate. One in three pupils over the age of 14 does not do the recommended amount of exercise in school each week according to figures released by the Liberal Democrats.
The Government and the National Lottery have dedicated 1.6 billion pounds to combat childhood obesity by boosting PE lessons since 2003 but over half of secondary schools still do not provide time for children to exercise for two hours a week. Gordon Brown recently pledged a further 100 million to get children to exercise for up to five hours during the school week.
Up to 900,000 pupils are missing out on the correct amount of sport causing fears about the future health of the nation the Liberal Democrats say. In 2002 Tony Blair's government recommended that all children should do at least two hours of exercise each week at school.
Don Foster, Liberal Democrat spokesman for Culture, Media and Sport, said: "Billions of pounds of taxpayers money have been pumped into school facilities, so parents are entitled to expect that their children are given a decent opportunity to use them. "With the 2012 Olympics on their way we should be encouraging the next generation of athletes. But these figures suggest the Government is set to squander the sporting legacy it could offer."
The new figures, released in response to a Parliamentary Question posed by the Liberal Democrats suggest that 33 per cent of all school children aged 14-16 do not do two hours of sport a week. Sixty five per cent of secondary schools and 32 per cent of primary schools fail to offer the required amount of sport each week.
Source
PROFESSOR DESCRIBES THE BISHOP OF STAFFORD AS A 'DEMONOLOGIST'
A professor and author at the University of Kent has labelled Gordon Mursell, the Bishop of Stafford, as a 'modern-day demonologist': Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at Kent and author of 'Invitation to Terror', criticises the Bishop of Stafford for comparing climate change sceptics to Josef Fritzl
Gordon Mursell, the Bishop of Stafford in England, is a man of the cloth. He is also a member of a posse of disoriented clerics, who have become so estranged from morally literate theology that they have embraced a new brand of demonology. At a time when moralisers cannot give any real meaning to classical ideas about right and wrong, they try instead to make people feel guilty about their impact on the environment. So instead of targeting those traditional demons - Satan, say, or witchcraft - Gordon Mursell attacks climate change deniers.
In a parish newsletter, the bishop said that people who refuse to join the fight against global warming are like Josef Fritzl, the insane criminal in Austria who locked his daughter and her children in a cellar for 24 years. For Mursell, being sceptical about the conventional wisdom on climate change is akin to the monstrous crime committed by Fritzl. He says: `You could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is.'
Mursell has not called for climate change deniers to be burned at the stake - yet. But the idea that they should be punished is implicit in his message. For some time now, religious and moral entrepreneurs have been searching zealously for demons. Some have argued that AIDS is God's way of punishing immoral sexual behaviour. Big catastrophes such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina have been portrayed as retribution for people's degenerate and sinful behaviour. One Christian writer described Katrina as `the fist of God'.
However, these religious-tinged fantasies tend not to resonate with the public imagination. In contrast, focusing on the current anxieties about the future of the planet seems to be a far more fruitful way of rediscovering Satan. And the linking of the crime of child abuse with scepticism about today's received green wisdom exemplifies the new demonology.
How demonologists work
Demonologists are moral entrepreneurs. They turn the problems faced by our communities into moral threats. One of the most striking illustrations of such demonology was the plague that is frequently referred to as the Black Death. The transformation of a fast-spreading disease into an epidemic of evil continues to excite people's imagination and fears today. According to one study, it was `only after Europeans had experienced this epidemic' that `they were ready to accept witchcraft as a real threat' (1). The moralisation of what is referred to as the `AIDS epidemic' shows that modern plagues are still used to convey a culturally meaningful message about `evil'.
Demonologists are intensely hostile to anyone who questions the way they interpret and talk about threats. As moral entrepreneurs, they regard their opponents, not only as irresponsible, but also as potentially evil. From this standpoint, dissidence comes to be seen as an act of moral subversion. The moralising of hazards serves to shut down discussion. At the very least, anyone who questions claims about the alleged gravity of a threat facing mankind is depicted as the stooge or accomplice of a malevolent agenda.
The act of raising questions about a `warning' is now discussed as an insidious deed of denial. Increasingly, questioning things is seen as the moral equivalent of Holocaust Denial. In recent years, people who have questioned the warnings about climate change have been labelled `deniers'. The allusion to Holocaust Denial is clear. The implication of this moral condemnation of questioners - the denouncement of critics as `deniers' - is that disbelief itself is a sign of moral bankruptcy.
Believing in a statement of warning is considered to be morally principled; disbelieving the statement, or even just questioning it, is stigmatised as morally corrupt. This transformation of disbelief into a sin was also widespread during the witch-hunts that plagued Europe in earlier centuries. In the era of the witch-hunt, anyone who questioned the existence of demonic forces could be denounced as an `associate of Satan'. Such was the power and influence of demonologists that few were prepared to question the existence of witchcraft.
In the 1980s and 90s, American crusaders against Satanic Ritual Abuse adopted a similar approach. A report published by the California Social Services Committee on Child Abuse Prevention described the widespread `denial of the problem of ritualistic abuse' as one of the main barriers to tackling it. Campaigners frequently argued that such denial was the moral equivalent of the depraved act of abuse itself (2). If you questioned the idea that Satanic Ritual Abuse was a real existing threat, you could be charged with complicity in the crimes of child molestation.
The dogmatic demand to `believe' has become a kind of moral imperative. Moral entrepreneurs argue that victims have a `right to be believed'. So crusaders against Satanic Ritual Abuse attempt to disarm sceptics by insisting that the worst thing that can happen to victims of abuse is not to be believed. Patrick Casement, author of Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, tries to guilt-trip sceptics:
`It may be that some accounts which are reputed to be of "satanic" abuse are delusional, and the narrators may indeed be psychotic in some cases. But we must still face the awful fact that if some of these accounts are true, if we do not have the courage to see the truth that may be there. we may tacitly be allowing these practices to continue under the cover of secrecy, supported also by the almost universal refusal to believe that they could exist.' (3)
In other words, those who refuse to believe accusations of Satanic Ritual Abuse are themselves complicit in the act of victimisation. During the outbreak of the satanic abuse panic in Britain in the 1980s and 90s, zealous witch-hunters claimed that an `insidious and dangerous' disease was sweeping the country: that is, incredulity about the existence of ritual abuse. According to one account, `this contagion takes the comforting form of sceptical and rational inquiry, and its message is comforting, too: it is designed to protect "innocent family life" against a new urban myth of the satanic abuse of children.' (4)
Shutting down debate
Through vilifying their opponents, demonologists attempt to close down discussion and debate. Such intolerance towards alternative and dissident opinions betrays the powerful anti-democratic impulse underpinning contemporary demonology, best expressed most recently by the Bishop of Stafford.
This censorious attitude has all the worst features of religious zealotary, and it is strikingly similar to traditional demonology. Demonologists in pre-modern times argued that scepticism about witchcraft was a form of heresy that had to be punished. The Malleus Maleficarum, one of the most influential manuals for witch-hunters, noted that `the question arises whether people who hold that witches do not exist are to be regarded as notorious heretics, or whether they are to be regarded as gravely suspect of holding heretical opinions'. It then says: `The first opinion is the correct one' (5). This depiction of scepticism as a form of moral transgression is still around today.
Scepticism towards the received wisdom on global warming, or public health issues such as AIDS, is described as `denial' - and today, `denial' has been transformed into a generic evil. The denial phenomenon has become a kind of free-floating blasphemy, which can attach itself to a variety of issues and problems. One environmentalist writer argues that the `language of "climate change", "global warming", "human impacts" and "adaptation" are themselves a form of denial familiar from other forms of human rights abuse' (6).
The charge of denial has become a secular form of blasphemy. Recently, a book written by someone who is sceptical of today's prevailing environmentalist wisdom was dismissed with the following words: `The text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.' (7) This forced association of three highly charged issues - pollution, AIDS and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews - shows how denial has become an all-purpose form of blasphemy.
Once denial has been stigmatised, there are demands for it to be censored. Consider the current attempts to stifle anyone who questions the predictions of catastrophic climate change. Some advocate a policy of zero tolerance towards climate change deniers. `I have very limited patience with those who deny human responsibility for upper-atmosphere pollution and ozone depletion', says one moral crusader, then declaring: `There is no intellectual difference between the Lomborgians [those who adhere to the arguments of the `skeptical environmentalist', Bjorn Lomborg] who steadfastly refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming from scientists of unquestioned reputation, and the neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers.' (8)
Increasingly, the heretic is condemned because he has dared to question an authority that must never be questioned. Here, `overwhelming evidence' serves as the equivalent of revealed religious truth, and those who question `scientists of unquestioned reputation' - that is, the new priestly caste - are guilty of blasphemy.
Heresy-hunters who charge their opponents with `ecological denial' also warn that the `time for reason and reasonableness is running short' (9). Crusaders against denial don't only wish to silence their opponents. In the true tradition of heresy-hunting they also want to inflict punishment on those who deny the true faith. David Roberts, a journalist for the online magazine Grist, would like to see global warming deniers prosecuted like Nazi war criminals. In a vitriolic tone characteristic of dogmatic inquisitors, he argued: `We should have war crimes trials for these bastards. some sort of climate Nuremberg.' (10) At the very least, it seems, these `criminals' should be castigated as the moral equivalents of Josef Fritzl.
Thankfully, a demonologist like the Bishop of Strafford lacks the power to impose the kind of punishments that were dished out by earlier generations of heresy-hunters. But if it is not challenged, his denunciation of `deniers' will contribute to the consolidation of a censorious mood and climate of anxiety. History shows that crusades against heretics and demons have a nasty habit of disorienting society, and undermining civilised and humanist behaviour.
Source
CLIMATE CHANGE AT THE GUARDIAN
It now says that we should tackle climate change through research and adaptation instead of trying to transform human behaviour:
Remember that global warming thingy? The idea was that we're wrecking the climate by pumping out greenhouse gases, and that we've jolly well got to change our wicked ways. Virtually the entire political, academic and media establishment threw its might behind this notion. Huge quantities of hot air were pumped out in its name, and many tonnes of pollutants expelled by planes carrying concerned dignitaries to global conferences.
There was, however, a problem: people didn't seem too keen to abandon driving, flying, meat eating, patio heating or even buying tungsten lightbulbs. Governments were understandably wary of trying to force them. Then, hey presto! Magically, the market seemed to have solved the problem, simply by pushing up the price of fuel. Yet what's been the response of our rulers? A panicky drive to keep the carbon bonfire fuelled by digging out yet more oil and abandoning proposed taxes on emissions.
We should hardly be surprised. We live in a democracy (sort of), and those seeking to retain or attain power must take some note of the will of the people. It turns out that, although we of course care about future generations and the people of low-lying Pacific islands, most of us don't care all that much. We're prepared to make sanctimonious gestures and attend the occasional concert of clapped-out superstars' appalling music. But we're not apparently prepared to sacrifice our welfare or our lifestyles, and we've been letting our rulers know.
Our commitment to other great altruistic causes has proved similar in character. Poverty has not been made history, and the aged remain pretty much unhelped. Of course, there have always been those among us, from Roundheads and Spanish inquisitors to the Khmer Rouge and Mary Whitehouse, whose commitment to social transformation in the name of virtue has been rather more serious.
Often, as now, their programmes have depended on the co-option of an unwilling majority. Unfortunately, gulags, purges and the rack remain out of reach of our current climate puritans, though some of them seem to regret this. George Monbiot, to be sure, happily beseeches a brutal despot for assistance in this dark hour for him and his ilk.
Perhaps, it's time to get real. Climate change activists should come to appreciate what religious reformers, communist revolutionaries and other utopian visionaries have learned before them. You can't change human behaviour in the interests of the supposed greater good.
Nonetheless, warming hasn't gone away, even if its character is less clear-cut than has been suggested by those urging us to make obeisance to it. What should we do about it?
The answer is surely to switch our efforts away from trying to change human behaviour towards other approaches to the problem. The most obvious is technological research into methods of alleviating warming. Up until now, mentioning this route has been considered a sinful attempt to divert attention from the hairshirt remedies on which the prophets of doom have insisted. Perhaps partly as a result, such research is proving surprisingly skimpy.
The sun can provide us with far more energy than fossil fuels, yet efforts to crack the technological problems involved in turning the Sahara into the world's power station are less intense than you might imagine. Or, to take the opposite approach, we know that seeding the atmosphere with particles could reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, since our own particulate pollution used to achieve just this effect. Yet little attempt is being made to find out if efforts in this direction could ever be economic.
Perhaps such ideas will prove fanciful. Since they may, we should be taking proper steps to adapt to future climate change, as well as trying to prevent it. Warming may devastate some parts of the world, but it will enhance the prospects of others. Russia and Canada would benefit by populating their currently frozen expanses with eager would-be farmers displaced from the tropics. Preparing for such transfers would be a long and delicate process. We could be starting it now. Yet, we're hardly even trying to develop new kinds of flood defence or drought-resistant crops. Why should we, while policy-makers assume that we're going to head-off warming by reducing our consumption of energy?
It's surely time for a change of tack. Or should we just wring our hands?
Source
Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS hospitals
Private managers could be brought in to run failing hospitals under measures to tackle poor performance in the health service. Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, is to announce rigorous standards of quality, safety, cleanliness and financial management for all hospital trusts, making it easier for inadequate managers or chairmen to be dismissed without large payoffs, The Times has learnt. Under the controversial plan, which has strong backing from Gordon Brown, managers could be brought in from the private sector or from elsewhere in the NHS.
Ben Bradshaw, the Health Minister, told Channel 4 News last night: “What we’ve never done before is to allow the private sector to take over the running of a whole hospital in the form of a franchise, which is one of the options that would be included in this performance regime. What we know from our experience of involvement in other parts of the health service is that the private sector can bring different skills, different management skills, different techniques.”
Doctors, politicians and unions gave warning last night that the measures risked undermining the fundamental principles of the NHS. Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North and former chairman of the Commons’ Science committee, said: “The privatisation of the NHS is becoming less than subtle. This is a blatant snub to the health service.” A spokesman for the British Medical Association, the doctors’ union, said it would have “grave concerns if the private sector took over [NHS] management”. “There is already an immense amount of talent within the NHS – in leadership and management – and this should be nurtured to ensure NHS trusts do not find themselves in a position of failure in the first place.”
A key new performance measure will be levels of Clostridium difficile or MRSA infections. There are 20 trusts that are classified as “weak” in the Government’s ratings and they will come under early and tough scrutiny.
The plan has been adopted enthusiastically by the Prime Minister, who hopes to show that he will be as radical on public service reform as Tony Blair. During the Blair years Mr Brown was often accused of being an obstacle to change, and prevented Alan Milburn giving independence on borrowing to foundation hospitals.
Government sources said last night that Mr Johnson’s move would be the first of a series from Cabinet ministers aimed at improving public services. They promised stringent minimum standards “and real consequences for those who fail to meet them”. Managers and trust chairmen will have their contracts drawn to relate to their performance against the new standards. They face dismissal – without payoffs – if they are placed on a performance improvement plan and then fail to meet the deadlines set within it.
At the moment 30 trusts, out of 290, including mental health trusts, are responsible for 46 per cent of the cases of MRSA infection and 57 per cent of patients having to wait more than 18 weeks for their operation. A total of 20 trusts were rated as “weak” for both quality of services and use of resources in October, while there are also 16 trusts that are considered “financially challenged” because of long-term budget deficits.
A government source said last night: “We can proceed with the next stage of public sector reform only if we have tackled the failing hospitals and eliminated unfair variations in local services. But we can only do that if we have a stringent set of minimum standards and enforce them.”
Source
More brilliant British bureaucracy: "The Ministry of Defence has spent more than 500 million pounds [a billion dollars] on eight Chinook helicopters that have never been flown as a result of "one of the most incompetent procurements of all time", an audit has concluded. The helicopters have been sitting in a special air-conditioned shelter for the past seven years because of a "gold-standard cockup" that meant the machines' software could not be accessed. While commanders in Afghanistan have been crying out for extra helicopters, the Chinooks - which were supposed to fly missions for Special Forces - have been lying idle in hangars in the Wiltshire countryside".
Another privileged class in Britain -- cyclists: "A traffic-dodging dash the wrong way up a one-way street may be the tempting risk for many a frustrated cyclist. But it will no longer be against the law under an experiment designed to encourage more people to switch from four wheels to two. The change - which will simply legitimise what many cyclists, including David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, do already - will be welcomed by thousands of law-abiding riders who have to take long diversions around one-way systems. Motorists, however, might be taken by surprise after failing to spot new signs at entry points and could find themselves being held liable for a collision with a bicycle." [And a homosexual Muslim cyclist can do no wrong at all, of course]
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Squatters taught to pick locks by council leaflet
Squatters are being given advice on how to break into empty properties and set up home without paying rent, in a council-recommended handbook. The booklet, issued by the Advisory Service for Squatters, gives tips on removing locks, and suggests that those caught breaking in to a property should claim they are “clearing drains”. In a section on legal advice, squatters are told to put a notice on the door warning it is a criminal offence to evict the new residents, and to threaten any homeowner who objects with the words: “You may receive a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment.”
A number of councils across the country are steering local people who do not have a home to the Advisory Service through links on their websites. They include Hackney, Islington, Brent and Camden in London, as well as Durham and Doncaster.
The Home Office also consults the group on its equality policies.
The guide positively encourages people to become squatters, with advice such as: "Only a small minority of squatters ever get nicked - squatting is not a crime. "If anyone says it is, they are wrong. "With a few exceptions, if you can get into an empty building without doing any damage, and can secure it, you can make it your home. "Private houses may provide years of housing to lucky squatters."
Eric Pickles, the Conservative local government spokesman, said he was appalled that councils were helping potential squatters get advice on breaking into empty properties. He added: "Homeowners will be horrified that town halls are giving squatters the green light to break into law-abiding citizens' homes."
Source
NHS turns away women about to give birth in Manchester
UNDER-pressure maternity units are being forced to close their doors almost three times a week - because they cannot cope with the numbers of expectant mothers. Health bosses say turning pregnant women away is a `last resort', but the M.E.N. has learned there were 150 closures in Greater Manchester last year. This was due to severe staff shortages and because all their beds were full. Staff also had to divert pregnant women to other hospitals because they were trying to cope with complex births, including a woman having triplets.
Figures show St Mary's hospital, in Manchester city centre, was worst affected, shutting its doors to admissions 54 times for up to 33 hours at a time. Senior doctors are `disappointed' with the high number of closures, but hope a plan to reorganise maternity units from 13 to eight sites, called Making it Better, will reduce them. Consultant obstetrician Mike Maresh told of their disappointment and said they were `upset' that mums are not delivering where they planned. He said: "Mums should have their baby at their planned hospital, and the Making it Better changes will help make sure this happens. "We are confident that having fewer, bigger, maternity units will resolve the problem of unplanned closures by concentrating staff and expertise.
The National Childbirth Trust (NCT) branded the closure figures as *unacceptable'. Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the leading charity, for parents, which offers advice and support to both pregnant women and new mums, others, said: “It is simply appalling to close a maternity unit. I know that hospitals do it for safety reasons, but babies do not wait. “Hospitals also know in advance when babies are expected and know how many women are due to give birth. To get into this situation is not acceptable.”
Mrs Phipps said midwives were leaving leaving the profession in *droves' because they were unhappy with conditions and NHS changes. to maternity provision. She added: “They like to work in small midwife-led units, not ever-bigger and bigger units.” Sarah Davies, a midwifery lecturer at Salford University, said: “The gold standard is one midwife to one woman – and this is not happening.”
Figures obtained under Freedom of Information laws show that Wythenshawe Hospital had the next-highest number of closures with 28. Other hospital closures in the year were Tameside General (5), Royal Oldham (19), Rochdale Infirmary (6), Fairfield in Bury (26), Salford Royal (4), Royal Bolton (2) and Stockport (4). There was only one at both the North Manchester General and Trafford General hospitals and none at the Wigan's Royal Albert Edward Infirmary.
A St Mary's spokesman said they were spending 900,000 pounds on extra delivery rooms and staff. And Pennine Acute Trust, which runs hospitals in Rochdale, north Manchester, Bury and Oldham, said closing units was due to 'high levels of clinical activity at a particular time' and *diverts' were a last resort.
Source
Why does it take Bishop Nazir-Ali to tell Britain how it really is?
Why is it that nobody in our own elite actually likes or understands this country or its people or its traditions? Why did we have to wait for Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, born and raised in Muslim Pakistan, to remind us that, as he put it, `the beliefs, values and virtues of Great Britain have been formed by the Christian faith'?
Just as important, why did we have to wait for him to urge us to do something about restoring that faith before we either sink into a yelling chaos of knives, fists and boots, or swoon into the strong, implacable arms of Islam? Most of our homegrown prelates are more interested in homosexuality or in spreading doubt about the gospel or urging the adoption of Sharia law.
Then again, why did it take the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to explain to us that our parliamentary system was the best guarantee of liberty in the world and to remind us of the courage and valour of our people in war? This is not what British leaders say or even think, not least because they are busy pulling the constitution to pieces. It is not what our children are taught in schools. In fact, any expression of national pride is viewed with suspicion by the state, by the education system and above all by the BBC.
It was not always so. Half a century ago, we had churchmen, broadcasters, academics and military men who thought it normal to love their own country, normal to support the Christian faith which made us what we are, and were willing to defend it. The question of what happened in the years between is one of the most interesting in history.
We know, thanks to their endless memoirs and the dramas about them, that this country's foreign and intelligence services were maggoty with Communist penetration. I am sometimes tempted to wonder if the same organisation targeted both political parties (especially the Unconservatives), the Church of England, the BBC, the Civil Service, the legal profession and the universities. The Communist leader Harry Pollitt certainly urged his supporters back in the Forties to hide their true views and work their way into the establishment. An organised conspiracy could not have done much more damage than whatever did happen.
We have a country demoralised in every sense, its people robbed of their own pride, its children deprived of stability and authority, terrifyingly ignorant of their own culture, its tottering economy largely owned from abroad, its armed forces weak, its justice system a sick joke, its masses distracted by pornography, drink and drugs, its constitution menaced, its elite in the grip of a destructive, intolerant atheism. Ripe, in fact, for a foreign takeover.
Source
Can't-do attitude to mathematics has cost the British economy big
A "lost generation" of mathematicians has cost the economy 9 billion pounds, while GCSE maths has become a "pick `n' mix" test rather than the key staging post it once was, according to a report. The decline in standards threatens the future of the economy, say the authors, and is having a devastating impact on the City [financial district], with some firms recruiting most of their maths graduates from overseas.
The report, by the Reform think-tank, accuses the Government of marginalising the interests of employers, teachers and students. It claims that ministers are focusing on exam results, rather than educational outcomes, and are trying to get pupils to pass any five GCSEs to meet targets, rather than concentrating on the core subjects of English and maths.
A culture shift is needed so that people no longer boast about their lack of maths skills but are instead embarrassed, the authors say. "The UK remains one of the few advanced nations where it is socially acceptable, fashionable even, to profess an inability to cope with maths," they add. "Society needs to build on its new interest in maths-based puzzles such as Su Doku to expel the myths about maths and change the image of the subject from geek to chic."
Holders of an A level in maths earn, on average, 10 per cent more, or 136,000 pounds, over a lifetime than those without it, Reform claims. About 440,000 people have been put off taking A-level maths since 1989, at a cost to the economy of 9 billion.
Explaining this downturn, the report said: "Concerns over poor teaching in the 1970s led to a massive extension of government involvement in the subject since the mid-1980s. "The unintended consequence has been demotivation of teachers, less enjoyment on the part of students and the distancing of employers and universities from education policy." The highest maths achievers are "at the pinnacle of the City hierarchy, making them the new `masters of the Universe' ", the report said, but these are increasingly recruited abroad. China and India are producing hundreds of thousands of science and maths graduates each year.
Maths exams are much easier now than 30 years ago, Reform says, because of efforts to make them more relevant to the workplace. This means that children are not being taught key skills such as problem solving. As a result, it is "now possible to achieve a grade C in GCSE maths having almost no conceptual knowledge of mathematics" and by scoring less than 20 per cent in the top paper. "A coherent discipline has changed to `pick `n' mix', with pupils being trained to answer specific shallow questions on a range of topics where marks can be most easily harvested." The report calls for independence of the examination system and a reversal of the trend towards modularisation.
David Laws, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary, said: "Our education system is too often failing to get the basics right, which risks damaging the national economy."
Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, said: "GCSE and A-level maths are rigorous qualifications [What bullsh!]. Standards are carefully monitored by a watchdog, which is independent of ministers, and they tell us maths is a nationally important priority."
Source
SEEING RED OVER 'GREEN' TAXES
A protest from the plain-spoken North of England
SO-CALLED "green" taxes are a con. They have absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet, or changing people's behaviour. It is all about raising revenue. Governments around the world have realised that environmentalism gives them an easy way of squeezing yet more tax out of hard-working people. And if you object, you are supposed to feel guilty about drowning polar bears.
"Green" taxes also impact most heavily on the poor. This isn't an accident, it is a deliberate policy. Take, for example, motoring. The only way of reducing the numbers of cars is by forcing the less-affluent off the roads. This is what increases in fuel duty and car tax are partly designed to achieve. Of course, some people will simply give up driving, but for many, they have little choice - particularly those with large families, or who live in a rural area, or who need a car to get to work.
Tough, say the environmentalists, pay up and stop moaning. Think of the polar bears.
Same with air travel. The green agenda is to stop the less-affluent from flying by making it so expensive that only the rich can afford it. But it won't stop Al Gore jetting around the globe lecturing us lesser mortals about the evils of flying.
A perfect example of this "green" tax con is the 200 pounds increase in car tax on so-called "gas guzzlers" due to be introduced next year. It will be imposed not just on high-performance cars and vast 4x4s, but on ordinary family vehicles, too. It is also retrospective, so if you bought a car seven years ago and can't afford to change it, you'll be hit by an enormous tax rise. As I said, it is nothing to do with changing your behaviour. It is all about making you pay more tax.
Richer people won't be put off driving by a few extra pence on fuel duty. Prince Charles won't be giving up the Aston Martin any time soon, and don't expect to see well-heeled eco warriors such as Jonathon Porritt or Lord Melchett shivering at the bus stop at six on a winter's morning.
Last year, a study by the Taxpayers' Alliance found that "green" taxes raised 21.9bn pounds in 2005 (the figure will be much higher today), but the social cost of carbon emissions was estimated at just 11.7bn. The difference - a whopping 10bn a year - was simply pocketed by the Chancellor. Not a penny of it went to the polar bears. Green issues are just an excuse to tax us more. They are not trying to save the planet - they just want to pick your pocket.
Source
STALLED WARMING
Comment from the "Financial Times". Good to see a mainstream outlet getting it
The science of climate change is increasingly confronted by profound disagreements and re-adjustments. The rise in temperatures that occurred during much of the 1980s and 1990s appears to have stalled for much of the past 10 years.
Meanwhile, global carbon dioxide emissions have been accelerating considerably. Greenhouse gas emissions increased on average 3 per cent a year from 2000 to 2005, compared with a growth rate of 1 per cent a year on average during the 1990s. Yet global temperatures failed to rise as a result of accelerating emissions.
A study published last month in the scientific journal Nature even predicted a slight cooling trend of up to 10 years as a result of shifting ocean currents. The report's publication triggered widespread confusion among climate modellers. After all, the climate models published only last year by the IPCC foretold a significant and relentless warming trend as a result of increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. None predicted that global warming would be arrested for a decade.
Even though it is likely that moderate warming will recommence, nobody knows for sure when this might occur. Unless there is a dramatic speeding of global temperature rise, climate science will be increasingly relegated to the margins of policymaking and economic considerations will become the dominant factor in the decision-making processes.
Conversely, as long as temperatures remain flat (or fall), politicians and the general public will become more sceptical. As a result, policymakers are likely to regard costly climate policies as a political liability and an economic risk that should be evaded as much as possible at both a national and international level.
It seems increasingly doubtful that a new, Kyoto-style climate treaty will be agreed at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen next year. The current cessation of global warming and the prospect of more years of stagnation will provide legislators with a respite for a sober reconsideration of cost-effective climate policies. What remains uncertain, however, is how long the slowdown will last and what will happen once temperatures start to rise again.
Source
BritGov gets tough on employers of illegals
Employers who hire illegal immigrants can be fined 10,000 pounds per worker from today in cases involving negligence, compared with a previous figure of 5,000 pounds. If the employer acts knowingly, the penalty could be an unlimited fine or jail. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, described the moves, which include a points-based immigration system for people from outside the European Union, as "the biggest changes to British immigration policy in a generation".
Highly skilled migrants who wish to extend their stay will have to have suitable employment. The points-based system, based on a system already in place in Australia, will be tested for highly skilled migrants applying from India in April, and extended to the rest of the world by the summer. The system will then be extended to skilled workers with a job offer, students, and temporary workers. A tier for low-skilled workers is not planned while vacancies can be filled by migrants from Eastern Europe.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said: "The introduction of our Australian-style points system will ensure that only those with skills the country needs can come to work and study. "Today's proposals are part of the biggest changes to British immigration policy in a generation, which include a new deal for those migrants seeking citizenship here, a new UK Border Agency to strengthen controls at the border and the introduction of ID cards for foreign nationals."
The system puts in question the scheme under which Commonweatlh citizens with a British grandparent are allowed to settle in this country. The Labour MP Austin Mitchell said that any proposal to scrap "ancestral visas" would cause anger.
Ministers also revealed that businesses which want to sponsor and employ migrants must be licensed by the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA). A licence will be required from the autumn, when the second tier of the points-based system is due to come into effect. Employers can begin applying for licences from today.
Sponsors will be rated "A" or "B" according to criteria set by the Home Office. Their activities will be monitored, and poor performance could lead to them being downgraded or removed from the register.
The points-based system replaces 80 existing migration routes to the UK. Tier One requires highly skilled workers to achieve a total of 75 points, with various amounts awarded for education, age and their level of previous earnings. About 40,000 people applied under the previous scheme for highly-skilled migrants in 2006, with about 20,000 being successful. Separately, about 14,500 highly-skilled migrants applied to renew their stay in 2006, of whom about 14,000 were successful.
Net migration to the UK was 191,000 in 2006, the lowest level for three years and more than 50,000 down on the 2004 record. A record number of people came to live in the UK for at least a year - 591,000, up slightly on the previous record set in 2004. The number of people leaving Britain for 12 months or more also reached a record high of 400,000.
Just over half (207,000) of emigrants were UK citizens - the first time the annual number of British emigrants had exceeded 200,000. Net immigration of people from New Commonwealth countries was the highest of all foreign groups - and of the 115,000 net inflow in 2006, 80 percent came from the Indian subcontinent.
Source
Squatters are being given advice on how to break into empty properties and set up home without paying rent, in a council-recommended handbook. The booklet, issued by the Advisory Service for Squatters, gives tips on removing locks, and suggests that those caught breaking in to a property should claim they are “clearing drains”. In a section on legal advice, squatters are told to put a notice on the door warning it is a criminal offence to evict the new residents, and to threaten any homeowner who objects with the words: “You may receive a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment.”
A number of councils across the country are steering local people who do not have a home to the Advisory Service through links on their websites. They include Hackney, Islington, Brent and Camden in London, as well as Durham and Doncaster.
The Home Office also consults the group on its equality policies.
The guide positively encourages people to become squatters, with advice such as: "Only a small minority of squatters ever get nicked - squatting is not a crime. "If anyone says it is, they are wrong. "With a few exceptions, if you can get into an empty building without doing any damage, and can secure it, you can make it your home. "Private houses may provide years of housing to lucky squatters."
Eric Pickles, the Conservative local government spokesman, said he was appalled that councils were helping potential squatters get advice on breaking into empty properties. He added: "Homeowners will be horrified that town halls are giving squatters the green light to break into law-abiding citizens' homes."
Source
NHS turns away women about to give birth in Manchester
UNDER-pressure maternity units are being forced to close their doors almost three times a week - because they cannot cope with the numbers of expectant mothers. Health bosses say turning pregnant women away is a `last resort', but the M.E.N. has learned there were 150 closures in Greater Manchester last year. This was due to severe staff shortages and because all their beds were full. Staff also had to divert pregnant women to other hospitals because they were trying to cope with complex births, including a woman having triplets.
Figures show St Mary's hospital, in Manchester city centre, was worst affected, shutting its doors to admissions 54 times for up to 33 hours at a time. Senior doctors are `disappointed' with the high number of closures, but hope a plan to reorganise maternity units from 13 to eight sites, called Making it Better, will reduce them. Consultant obstetrician Mike Maresh told of their disappointment and said they were `upset' that mums are not delivering where they planned. He said: "Mums should have their baby at their planned hospital, and the Making it Better changes will help make sure this happens. "We are confident that having fewer, bigger, maternity units will resolve the problem of unplanned closures by concentrating staff and expertise.
The National Childbirth Trust (NCT) branded the closure figures as *unacceptable'. Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the leading charity, for parents, which offers advice and support to both pregnant women and new mums, others, said: “It is simply appalling to close a maternity unit. I know that hospitals do it for safety reasons, but babies do not wait. “Hospitals also know in advance when babies are expected and know how many women are due to give birth. To get into this situation is not acceptable.”
Mrs Phipps said midwives were leaving leaving the profession in *droves' because they were unhappy with conditions and NHS changes. to maternity provision. She added: “They like to work in small midwife-led units, not ever-bigger and bigger units.” Sarah Davies, a midwifery lecturer at Salford University, said: “The gold standard is one midwife to one woman – and this is not happening.”
Figures obtained under Freedom of Information laws show that Wythenshawe Hospital had the next-highest number of closures with 28. Other hospital closures in the year were Tameside General (5), Royal Oldham (19), Rochdale Infirmary (6), Fairfield in Bury (26), Salford Royal (4), Royal Bolton (2) and Stockport (4). There was only one at both the North Manchester General and Trafford General hospitals and none at the Wigan's Royal Albert Edward Infirmary.
A St Mary's spokesman said they were spending 900,000 pounds on extra delivery rooms and staff. And Pennine Acute Trust, which runs hospitals in Rochdale, north Manchester, Bury and Oldham, said closing units was due to 'high levels of clinical activity at a particular time' and *diverts' were a last resort.
Source
Why does it take Bishop Nazir-Ali to tell Britain how it really is?
Why is it that nobody in our own elite actually likes or understands this country or its people or its traditions? Why did we have to wait for Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, born and raised in Muslim Pakistan, to remind us that, as he put it, `the beliefs, values and virtues of Great Britain have been formed by the Christian faith'?
Just as important, why did we have to wait for him to urge us to do something about restoring that faith before we either sink into a yelling chaos of knives, fists and boots, or swoon into the strong, implacable arms of Islam? Most of our homegrown prelates are more interested in homosexuality or in spreading doubt about the gospel or urging the adoption of Sharia law.
Then again, why did it take the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to explain to us that our parliamentary system was the best guarantee of liberty in the world and to remind us of the courage and valour of our people in war? This is not what British leaders say or even think, not least because they are busy pulling the constitution to pieces. It is not what our children are taught in schools. In fact, any expression of national pride is viewed with suspicion by the state, by the education system and above all by the BBC.
It was not always so. Half a century ago, we had churchmen, broadcasters, academics and military men who thought it normal to love their own country, normal to support the Christian faith which made us what we are, and were willing to defend it. The question of what happened in the years between is one of the most interesting in history.
We know, thanks to their endless memoirs and the dramas about them, that this country's foreign and intelligence services were maggoty with Communist penetration. I am sometimes tempted to wonder if the same organisation targeted both political parties (especially the Unconservatives), the Church of England, the BBC, the Civil Service, the legal profession and the universities. The Communist leader Harry Pollitt certainly urged his supporters back in the Forties to hide their true views and work their way into the establishment. An organised conspiracy could not have done much more damage than whatever did happen.
We have a country demoralised in every sense, its people robbed of their own pride, its children deprived of stability and authority, terrifyingly ignorant of their own culture, its tottering economy largely owned from abroad, its armed forces weak, its justice system a sick joke, its masses distracted by pornography, drink and drugs, its constitution menaced, its elite in the grip of a destructive, intolerant atheism. Ripe, in fact, for a foreign takeover.
Source
Can't-do attitude to mathematics has cost the British economy big
A "lost generation" of mathematicians has cost the economy 9 billion pounds, while GCSE maths has become a "pick `n' mix" test rather than the key staging post it once was, according to a report. The decline in standards threatens the future of the economy, say the authors, and is having a devastating impact on the City [financial district], with some firms recruiting most of their maths graduates from overseas.
The report, by the Reform think-tank, accuses the Government of marginalising the interests of employers, teachers and students. It claims that ministers are focusing on exam results, rather than educational outcomes, and are trying to get pupils to pass any five GCSEs to meet targets, rather than concentrating on the core subjects of English and maths.
A culture shift is needed so that people no longer boast about their lack of maths skills but are instead embarrassed, the authors say. "The UK remains one of the few advanced nations where it is socially acceptable, fashionable even, to profess an inability to cope with maths," they add. "Society needs to build on its new interest in maths-based puzzles such as Su Doku to expel the myths about maths and change the image of the subject from geek to chic."
Holders of an A level in maths earn, on average, 10 per cent more, or 136,000 pounds, over a lifetime than those without it, Reform claims. About 440,000 people have been put off taking A-level maths since 1989, at a cost to the economy of 9 billion.
Explaining this downturn, the report said: "Concerns over poor teaching in the 1970s led to a massive extension of government involvement in the subject since the mid-1980s. "The unintended consequence has been demotivation of teachers, less enjoyment on the part of students and the distancing of employers and universities from education policy." The highest maths achievers are "at the pinnacle of the City hierarchy, making them the new `masters of the Universe' ", the report said, but these are increasingly recruited abroad. China and India are producing hundreds of thousands of science and maths graduates each year.
Maths exams are much easier now than 30 years ago, Reform says, because of efforts to make them more relevant to the workplace. This means that children are not being taught key skills such as problem solving. As a result, it is "now possible to achieve a grade C in GCSE maths having almost no conceptual knowledge of mathematics" and by scoring less than 20 per cent in the top paper. "A coherent discipline has changed to `pick `n' mix', with pupils being trained to answer specific shallow questions on a range of topics where marks can be most easily harvested." The report calls for independence of the examination system and a reversal of the trend towards modularisation.
David Laws, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Schools Secretary, said: "Our education system is too often failing to get the basics right, which risks damaging the national economy."
Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, said: "GCSE and A-level maths are rigorous qualifications [What bullsh!]. Standards are carefully monitored by a watchdog, which is independent of ministers, and they tell us maths is a nationally important priority."
Source
SEEING RED OVER 'GREEN' TAXES
A protest from the plain-spoken North of England
SO-CALLED "green" taxes are a con. They have absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet, or changing people's behaviour. It is all about raising revenue. Governments around the world have realised that environmentalism gives them an easy way of squeezing yet more tax out of hard-working people. And if you object, you are supposed to feel guilty about drowning polar bears.
"Green" taxes also impact most heavily on the poor. This isn't an accident, it is a deliberate policy. Take, for example, motoring. The only way of reducing the numbers of cars is by forcing the less-affluent off the roads. This is what increases in fuel duty and car tax are partly designed to achieve. Of course, some people will simply give up driving, but for many, they have little choice - particularly those with large families, or who live in a rural area, or who need a car to get to work.
Tough, say the environmentalists, pay up and stop moaning. Think of the polar bears.
Same with air travel. The green agenda is to stop the less-affluent from flying by making it so expensive that only the rich can afford it. But it won't stop Al Gore jetting around the globe lecturing us lesser mortals about the evils of flying.
A perfect example of this "green" tax con is the 200 pounds increase in car tax on so-called "gas guzzlers" due to be introduced next year. It will be imposed not just on high-performance cars and vast 4x4s, but on ordinary family vehicles, too. It is also retrospective, so if you bought a car seven years ago and can't afford to change it, you'll be hit by an enormous tax rise. As I said, it is nothing to do with changing your behaviour. It is all about making you pay more tax.
Richer people won't be put off driving by a few extra pence on fuel duty. Prince Charles won't be giving up the Aston Martin any time soon, and don't expect to see well-heeled eco warriors such as Jonathon Porritt or Lord Melchett shivering at the bus stop at six on a winter's morning.
Last year, a study by the Taxpayers' Alliance found that "green" taxes raised 21.9bn pounds in 2005 (the figure will be much higher today), but the social cost of carbon emissions was estimated at just 11.7bn. The difference - a whopping 10bn a year - was simply pocketed by the Chancellor. Not a penny of it went to the polar bears. Green issues are just an excuse to tax us more. They are not trying to save the planet - they just want to pick your pocket.
Source
STALLED WARMING
Comment from the "Financial Times". Good to see a mainstream outlet getting it
The science of climate change is increasingly confronted by profound disagreements and re-adjustments. The rise in temperatures that occurred during much of the 1980s and 1990s appears to have stalled for much of the past 10 years.
Meanwhile, global carbon dioxide emissions have been accelerating considerably. Greenhouse gas emissions increased on average 3 per cent a year from 2000 to 2005, compared with a growth rate of 1 per cent a year on average during the 1990s. Yet global temperatures failed to rise as a result of accelerating emissions.
A study published last month in the scientific journal Nature even predicted a slight cooling trend of up to 10 years as a result of shifting ocean currents. The report's publication triggered widespread confusion among climate modellers. After all, the climate models published only last year by the IPCC foretold a significant and relentless warming trend as a result of increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. None predicted that global warming would be arrested for a decade.
Even though it is likely that moderate warming will recommence, nobody knows for sure when this might occur. Unless there is a dramatic speeding of global temperature rise, climate science will be increasingly relegated to the margins of policymaking and economic considerations will become the dominant factor in the decision-making processes.
Conversely, as long as temperatures remain flat (or fall), politicians and the general public will become more sceptical. As a result, policymakers are likely to regard costly climate policies as a political liability and an economic risk that should be evaded as much as possible at both a national and international level.
It seems increasingly doubtful that a new, Kyoto-style climate treaty will be agreed at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen next year. The current cessation of global warming and the prospect of more years of stagnation will provide legislators with a respite for a sober reconsideration of cost-effective climate policies. What remains uncertain, however, is how long the slowdown will last and what will happen once temperatures start to rise again.
Source
BritGov gets tough on employers of illegals
Employers who hire illegal immigrants can be fined 10,000 pounds per worker from today in cases involving negligence, compared with a previous figure of 5,000 pounds. If the employer acts knowingly, the penalty could be an unlimited fine or jail. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, described the moves, which include a points-based immigration system for people from outside the European Union, as "the biggest changes to British immigration policy in a generation".
Highly skilled migrants who wish to extend their stay will have to have suitable employment. The points-based system, based on a system already in place in Australia, will be tested for highly skilled migrants applying from India in April, and extended to the rest of the world by the summer. The system will then be extended to skilled workers with a job offer, students, and temporary workers. A tier for low-skilled workers is not planned while vacancies can be filled by migrants from Eastern Europe.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said: "The introduction of our Australian-style points system will ensure that only those with skills the country needs can come to work and study. "Today's proposals are part of the biggest changes to British immigration policy in a generation, which include a new deal for those migrants seeking citizenship here, a new UK Border Agency to strengthen controls at the border and the introduction of ID cards for foreign nationals."
The system puts in question the scheme under which Commonweatlh citizens with a British grandparent are allowed to settle in this country. The Labour MP Austin Mitchell said that any proposal to scrap "ancestral visas" would cause anger.
Ministers also revealed that businesses which want to sponsor and employ migrants must be licensed by the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA). A licence will be required from the autumn, when the second tier of the points-based system is due to come into effect. Employers can begin applying for licences from today.
Sponsors will be rated "A" or "B" according to criteria set by the Home Office. Their activities will be monitored, and poor performance could lead to them being downgraded or removed from the register.
The points-based system replaces 80 existing migration routes to the UK. Tier One requires highly skilled workers to achieve a total of 75 points, with various amounts awarded for education, age and their level of previous earnings. About 40,000 people applied under the previous scheme for highly-skilled migrants in 2006, with about 20,000 being successful. Separately, about 14,500 highly-skilled migrants applied to renew their stay in 2006, of whom about 14,000 were successful.
Net migration to the UK was 191,000 in 2006, the lowest level for three years and more than 50,000 down on the 2004 record. A record number of people came to live in the UK for at least a year - 591,000, up slightly on the previous record set in 2004. The number of people leaving Britain for 12 months or more also reached a record high of 400,000.
Just over half (207,000) of emigrants were UK citizens - the first time the annual number of British emigrants had exceeded 200,000. Net immigration of people from New Commonwealth countries was the highest of all foreign groups - and of the 115,000 net inflow in 2006, 80 percent came from the Indian subcontinent.
Source
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Preaching the Gospel in Britain can be a "hate crime"
According to some British police:
The police bosses have now backed off -- but have refused to apologize. Marvellous what a bit of publicity does. Pity for you if you can't mobilize publicity, though.
Will tolerance of abortion decrease?
A comment from Britain
As a leftie, I had always been persuaded that abortion on demand is the right of every woman, with no arguments brooked. `Persuaded' is perhaps the wrong word; the rights of a woman to do whatever the hell she liked with her foetus was simply not something open to negotiation or debate with someone in possession of a penis, even if it was quite a small penis like mine. But a dark foreboding nonetheless gnawed away at me - much as, on a personal level, it gnawed away at many of the feminists who advanced this totalitarian no-surrender hypothesis. It is still, if you are on the feminist Left, an unchallengeable shibboleth, which is why the debate today is so fraught - the god-botherers on one side, the liberal Left on the other.
I may be wrong about this, but it strikes me that in a century or so, or maybe even less, we will be appalled that we allowed abortions at all. I do not mean that we should not allow them now; it is merely a suspicion that the advance of our knowledge about the life of a foetus, coupled with an improved ability to prevent conception, will mean that we will be mystified as to how such a primitive and brutal procedure could have become state-sanctioned and commonplace. I can see politicians in 2108 erecting monuments and offering apologies to the unborn dead - divorced from the reality of where we are now, and why. Apologising, in the manner of Tony Blair, with hindsight for crimes which were not considered crimes except by a furious and vengeful minority.
The scientific case - as opposed to the dubious religious case - against abortion seems to me as good as proven; or, at worst, pointing in the direction of being proven. Announcing the government's wish to stick by the 24-week limit which Britain currently has, the health minister Dawn Primarolo said: `No scientific evidence shows that the survival rates [of the foetus] have changed.'
You would guess that this is a politically expedient clutching at straws and carries with it the implication that they sort of expect the scientific evidence to change at some point in the future, that where we are now is a stop-gap, a temporary measure. It is only a matter of time - and not very much time, either, before the sentience of a foetus at 24 weeks becomes an established fact, beyond all dispute. And a little further on, 20 weeks, and then ten. There are plenty of scientists around - not all of them Roman Catholic - who will tell you that the foetus is a sort of sentient being which can experience pain as early as eight to nine weeks, when the major organs are all formed in an albeit rudimentary manner. The majority of neurobiologists seem to cleave to the view that between 20 and 24 weeks, with the establishment in the foetus of thalamocortical connections, the unborn child can certainly experience pain.
It is a deeply pessimistic outlook to define a human being merely by his or her ability to detect pain, of course. There is other stuff that makes us human. However, even by this baleful guideline, Eve Johnstone for the Medical Research Council reported in 2001 that it was `probable' that the human foetus was aware of pain at 24 weeks.
Source
According to some British police:
"The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.
Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, both full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed their right to profess their religion.
Mr Abraham said: "I couldn't believe this was happening in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester was criticised by the Church of England recently when he said there were no-go areas in Britain but he was right; there are certainly no-go areas for Christians who want to share the gospel."
Source
The police bosses have now backed off -- but have refused to apologize. Marvellous what a bit of publicity does. Pity for you if you can't mobilize publicity, though.
Will tolerance of abortion decrease?
A comment from Britain
As a leftie, I had always been persuaded that abortion on demand is the right of every woman, with no arguments brooked. `Persuaded' is perhaps the wrong word; the rights of a woman to do whatever the hell she liked with her foetus was simply not something open to negotiation or debate with someone in possession of a penis, even if it was quite a small penis like mine. But a dark foreboding nonetheless gnawed away at me - much as, on a personal level, it gnawed away at many of the feminists who advanced this totalitarian no-surrender hypothesis. It is still, if you are on the feminist Left, an unchallengeable shibboleth, which is why the debate today is so fraught - the god-botherers on one side, the liberal Left on the other.
I may be wrong about this, but it strikes me that in a century or so, or maybe even less, we will be appalled that we allowed abortions at all. I do not mean that we should not allow them now; it is merely a suspicion that the advance of our knowledge about the life of a foetus, coupled with an improved ability to prevent conception, will mean that we will be mystified as to how such a primitive and brutal procedure could have become state-sanctioned and commonplace. I can see politicians in 2108 erecting monuments and offering apologies to the unborn dead - divorced from the reality of where we are now, and why. Apologising, in the manner of Tony Blair, with hindsight for crimes which were not considered crimes except by a furious and vengeful minority.
The scientific case - as opposed to the dubious religious case - against abortion seems to me as good as proven; or, at worst, pointing in the direction of being proven. Announcing the government's wish to stick by the 24-week limit which Britain currently has, the health minister Dawn Primarolo said: `No scientific evidence shows that the survival rates [of the foetus] have changed.'
You would guess that this is a politically expedient clutching at straws and carries with it the implication that they sort of expect the scientific evidence to change at some point in the future, that where we are now is a stop-gap, a temporary measure. It is only a matter of time - and not very much time, either, before the sentience of a foetus at 24 weeks becomes an established fact, beyond all dispute. And a little further on, 20 weeks, and then ten. There are plenty of scientists around - not all of them Roman Catholic - who will tell you that the foetus is a sort of sentient being which can experience pain as early as eight to nine weeks, when the major organs are all formed in an albeit rudimentary manner. The majority of neurobiologists seem to cleave to the view that between 20 and 24 weeks, with the establishment in the foetus of thalamocortical connections, the unborn child can certainly experience pain.
It is a deeply pessimistic outlook to define a human being merely by his or her ability to detect pain, of course. There is other stuff that makes us human. However, even by this baleful guideline, Eve Johnstone for the Medical Research Council reported in 2001 that it was `probable' that the human foetus was aware of pain at 24 weeks.
Source
Sunday, June 01, 2008
GREENPEACE DECLARES WAR ON BISHOP OF CHESTER OVER CLIMATE SCEPTICISM
The Bishop of Chester was under fire last night after suggesting mankind is not to blame for global warming, which he said would happen "come what may".
Friends of the Earth condemned the comments by Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, insisting scientists were united in their certainty that global temperatures were rising because of carbon dioxide emissions. The green group said everyone had a responsibility to "wake up to the threat posed by climate change", adding: "The debate is over. The alarm bells are ringing."
The row followed the Bishop of Chester's speech in a House of Lords debate on energy, in which he said discussion about the causes of global warming was "still open". Describing himself as a "scientist in a previous incarnation", Dr Forster - whose diocese includes Wirral - said there was no consensus among climate scientists that "carbon dioxide levels are the key determinant". And he told peers: "Climate science is a notoriously imprecise area, because the phenomena under investigation are so large. "That makes precision difficult to achieve."
The bishop's views are in stark contrast to those of his near-neighbour, the Bishop of Liverpool, who once warned that the chances of Earth surviving the century were no better than 50/50.
Source
MAKING POOR PEOPLE POORER IS A "LEGITIMATE WAY TO CUT EMISSIONS"
Higher energy prices are a "legitimate" way to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Gordon Brown's chief adviser on climate change said on Friday, even as the government faces mounting pressure from MPs to ease fuel taxes.
Adair Turner, the chairman of the government's climate change committee and new head of the Financial Services Authority, told the Financial Times that, as a matter of principle, "everyone accepts that putting a price on carbon is a crucial instrument" to cut emissions. "That will put up the price of energy and there is no way round that. We should not deny that is what these policies do," he said.
Lord Turner's comments underline the growing conflict between environmental policies - which rely on increasing the cost of energy to encourage people to cut their emissions - and the government's need to respond to widespread concerns over the effects of high energy prices. The timing of Lord Turner's intervention could hardly be worse for Mr Brown. As Labour on Friday suffered its worst poll rating since records began in 1943, the prime minister remained under intense pressure over his handling of the fuel crisis.
Mr Brown this week unveiled a flurry of measures including state support to ease fuel poverty, signals of a U-turn on motoring taxes and a minor boost to North Sea oil production. He highlighted the impact on families of "the cost of filling up at the petrol station and in the rise in gas and electricity bills". Though he refused directly to criticise Gordon Brown, Lord Turner said the emphasis should be on encouraging people to cut their fuel use, rather than easing price pressures: "There are huge opportunities for energy efficiency."
He added: "If you are worried about the impact on low-income groups of fuel prices, the response should be to intensify support for them to improve their energy efficiency, rather than say you have to give up on climate change objectives."
Lord Turner will wield the greatest influence of any official over the government's climate policies for the next six months as he crafts a strategy for emissions reductions for the next five years and beyond. After that, he will give up his climate change responsibilities to focus on the FSA.
The Tories have latched on to fuel prices as an electorally potent issue, which played well in the this month's Crewe by-election victory. Alan Duncan, shadow business secretary, accused the government of having "desperately tried to make it look as if they're doing something about energy prices. In fact they're not."
Source
British universities' witch-hunt against the Jews
Today, the Universities and Colleges Union is discussing whether universities should single out Israeli and Jewish scholars for active discrimination. Yes, you read that correctly. The UCU is debating a motion which not only raises the spectre yet again of an academic boycott of Israel but demands of Jewish and Israeli academics that they explain their politics as a pre-condition to normal academic contact. The motion asks colleagues
The implication is that, if they don't condemn Israel for the `occupation', or practising `apartheid', `genocide' or any of the other manufactured crimes laid at Israel's door by the Palestinian/Islamist/neonazi/leftwing axis, they won't be able to work. Their continued employment will depend on their holding views which are permitted. The views they are being bludgeoned into expressing as a condition of their employment are based on lies, distortion, propaganda, gross historical ignorance, blood libels and prejudice. And this in the universities, supposedly the custodians of free thought and inquiry in the service of dispassionate scholarship.
What makes it all the more appalling is that it is Israelis and Jews alone who are being singled out for this treatment. No other group is to be barred from academic activity unless they hold `approved' views; no state-run educational institution controlled by any of the world's numerous tyrannies is to be `grey-listed'. The UCU's own rules state that it
actively opposes all forms of harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination.
Well, various Jewish groups in the Stop the Boycott campaign have obtained a legal opinion from two QCs which states that today's motion constitutes harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination on grounds of race or nationality. It says:
The opinion is thus unequivocal. Today's motion breaks the law; it breaks the UCU's own rules; it is prejudiced, discriminatory and unjust towards Israelis and Jews. But the motion also notes
In other words, two fingers to the Jews. Such is the disgusting and terrifying state to which Britain's intelligentsia has now descended.
Source
Britain's UCU: where is your boycott of academics from Cuba, China, Sudan.or the USA?
This sickening tripe, as reported by the Guardian, shouldn't be worth commenting on.
...but we have to.
For the sake of brevity, we'll leave aside the obvious: that the double standards in not pursuing a boycott of Chinese, Sudanese, Zimbabwean, Cuban, etc academics shows a tendency to hold said peoples in lower moral and ethic regard than Israelis - i.e. Judeo-Christians.
No, what's interesting is that, when we look at the premise - accusations of human rights abuses of Palestinian-Arabs - for the boycott, we see an emptiness in their beliefs. You see, the repercussions to the threats to boycott products and academics from tiny, almost-friendless Israel, are small in consequence to the boycotters than were they to follow through on their principles. Were they to (a) continue to ignore the aforementioned list of genuine and disgraceful human rights abusers, and (b) aim their anger at some Big Boy offenders, who would they be forced to boycott?
The USA.
After all, who so these same people claim have killed, what, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, Afghans, etc. - numbers that shrink even the most fabulously inflated number of slaughtered Palestinian-Arabs by Israel.
Are they going to live in a world without products, academic papers, medicines, technological innovations, Green Cards, UN funding - not to mention military help every time the peace-loving EU can't handle a field battle in their own back yard involving a country the size of an average sitting room? That, our lovely readers, that is why these moral cowards pick on tiny Israel.
Source
The Bishop of Chester was under fire last night after suggesting mankind is not to blame for global warming, which he said would happen "come what may".
Friends of the Earth condemned the comments by Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, insisting scientists were united in their certainty that global temperatures were rising because of carbon dioxide emissions. The green group said everyone had a responsibility to "wake up to the threat posed by climate change", adding: "The debate is over. The alarm bells are ringing."
The row followed the Bishop of Chester's speech in a House of Lords debate on energy, in which he said discussion about the causes of global warming was "still open". Describing himself as a "scientist in a previous incarnation", Dr Forster - whose diocese includes Wirral - said there was no consensus among climate scientists that "carbon dioxide levels are the key determinant". And he told peers: "Climate science is a notoriously imprecise area, because the phenomena under investigation are so large. "That makes precision difficult to achieve."
The bishop's views are in stark contrast to those of his near-neighbour, the Bishop of Liverpool, who once warned that the chances of Earth surviving the century were no better than 50/50.
Source
MAKING POOR PEOPLE POORER IS A "LEGITIMATE WAY TO CUT EMISSIONS"
Higher energy prices are a "legitimate" way to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Gordon Brown's chief adviser on climate change said on Friday, even as the government faces mounting pressure from MPs to ease fuel taxes.
Adair Turner, the chairman of the government's climate change committee and new head of the Financial Services Authority, told the Financial Times that, as a matter of principle, "everyone accepts that putting a price on carbon is a crucial instrument" to cut emissions. "That will put up the price of energy and there is no way round that. We should not deny that is what these policies do," he said.
Lord Turner's comments underline the growing conflict between environmental policies - which rely on increasing the cost of energy to encourage people to cut their emissions - and the government's need to respond to widespread concerns over the effects of high energy prices. The timing of Lord Turner's intervention could hardly be worse for Mr Brown. As Labour on Friday suffered its worst poll rating since records began in 1943, the prime minister remained under intense pressure over his handling of the fuel crisis.
Mr Brown this week unveiled a flurry of measures including state support to ease fuel poverty, signals of a U-turn on motoring taxes and a minor boost to North Sea oil production. He highlighted the impact on families of "the cost of filling up at the petrol station and in the rise in gas and electricity bills". Though he refused directly to criticise Gordon Brown, Lord Turner said the emphasis should be on encouraging people to cut their fuel use, rather than easing price pressures: "There are huge opportunities for energy efficiency."
He added: "If you are worried about the impact on low-income groups of fuel prices, the response should be to intensify support for them to improve their energy efficiency, rather than say you have to give up on climate change objectives."
Lord Turner will wield the greatest influence of any official over the government's climate policies for the next six months as he crafts a strategy for emissions reductions for the next five years and beyond. After that, he will give up his climate change responsibilities to focus on the FSA.
The Tories have latched on to fuel prices as an electorally potent issue, which played well in the this month's Crewe by-election victory. Alan Duncan, shadow business secretary, accused the government of having "desperately tried to make it look as if they're doing something about energy prices. In fact they're not."
Source
British universities' witch-hunt against the Jews
Today, the Universities and Colleges Union is discussing whether universities should single out Israeli and Jewish scholars for active discrimination. Yes, you read that correctly. The UCU is debating a motion which not only raises the spectre yet again of an academic boycott of Israel but demands of Jewish and Israeli academics that they explain their politics as a pre-condition to normal academic contact. The motion asks colleagues
to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating... the testimonies will be used to promote a wide discussion by colleagues of the appropriateness of continued educational links with Israeli academic institutions... Ariel College, an explicitly colonising institution in the West Bank, be investigated under the formal Greylisting Procedure.
The implication is that, if they don't condemn Israel for the `occupation', or practising `apartheid', `genocide' or any of the other manufactured crimes laid at Israel's door by the Palestinian/Islamist/neonazi/leftwing axis, they won't be able to work. Their continued employment will depend on their holding views which are permitted. The views they are being bludgeoned into expressing as a condition of their employment are based on lies, distortion, propaganda, gross historical ignorance, blood libels and prejudice. And this in the universities, supposedly the custodians of free thought and inquiry in the service of dispassionate scholarship.
What makes it all the more appalling is that it is Israelis and Jews alone who are being singled out for this treatment. No other group is to be barred from academic activity unless they hold `approved' views; no state-run educational institution controlled by any of the world's numerous tyrannies is to be `grey-listed'. The UCU's own rules state that it
actively opposes all forms of harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination.
Well, various Jewish groups in the Stop the Boycott campaign have obtained a legal opinion from two QCs which states that today's motion constitutes harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination on grounds of race or nationality. It says:
If the Motion is passed it would expose Jewish members of the Union to indirect discrimination... Additionally, the Union faces potential liability for acts of harassment on grounds of race or nationality. The substance of the Motion may also involve the Union in becoming accessories to acts of discrimination in an employment context against Israeli academics...No doubt, if such Israeli academics speak in favour of the Palestinian viewpoint they will be immune from further action; if they are against it or possibly even non-committal they and their institutions are to be considered potentially unsuitable subjects for continued association...
The Union will accordingly be adopting a provision, criterion or practice which will put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members. That is because Jewish members are much more likely to have links with Israeli academics and institutions than non -Jewish members. To require Jewish members to act consistently with the Motion (if passed) would be to impose a professional detriment upon them as Union members which is based on their race. If they acted inconsistently with the Motion, we infer that they would also be subject to disadvantage or sanction under the Union rules or practices -- an alternative detriment. We do not see how any such detriment would be justified as pursuing a legitimate aim. No proper Union purpose is promoted by imposing this detriment on certain members. Thus the Motion will have the effect of indirectly -- and unlawfully -- against Jewish Members of the Union.
The opinion is thus unequivocal. Today's motion breaks the law; it breaks the UCU's own rules; it is prejudiced, discriminatory and unjust towards Israelis and Jews. But the motion also notes
legal attempts to prevent UCU debating boycott of Israeli academic institutions; and legal advice that such debates are lawful
In other words, two fingers to the Jews. Such is the disgusting and terrifying state to which Britain's intelligentsia has now descended.
Source
Britain's UCU: where is your boycott of academics from Cuba, China, Sudan.or the USA?
This sickening tripe, as reported by the Guardian, shouldn't be worth commenting on.
A lecturers' union was last night accused of launching a new academic boycott of Israel after it agreed a policy to call on its members to "consider" their links with Israeli institutions.
The University and College Union voted overwhelmingly at its Manchester conference to call on colleagues to "consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions, and to discuss the occupation with individuals and institutions concerned, including Israeli colleagues with whom they are collaborating"..
Academics argued that it was not a new boycott, but a show of their right to debate the issues facing Palestinian colleagues and, separately, links with Israeli institutions. Tom Hickey of the NEC and Brighton University, which proposed the motion, told delegates: "Being a student or teacher in Palestine is not easy . we are talking about not just impediment but serial humiliation and that's the order of the day in Palestine... In the face of accusations of anti-semitism and legal threats we refused to be intimidated. We will protect the union from legal threats but we will not be silenced.".
In a statement, the vice-chancellors' umbrella group, Universities UK, said: "We believe a boycott of this kind, advocating the severing of academic links with a particular nationality or country, is at odds with the fundamental principle of academic freedom."
...but we have to.
For the sake of brevity, we'll leave aside the obvious: that the double standards in not pursuing a boycott of Chinese, Sudanese, Zimbabwean, Cuban, etc academics shows a tendency to hold said peoples in lower moral and ethic regard than Israelis - i.e. Judeo-Christians.
No, what's interesting is that, when we look at the premise - accusations of human rights abuses of Palestinian-Arabs - for the boycott, we see an emptiness in their beliefs. You see, the repercussions to the threats to boycott products and academics from tiny, almost-friendless Israel, are small in consequence to the boycotters than were they to follow through on their principles. Were they to (a) continue to ignore the aforementioned list of genuine and disgraceful human rights abusers, and (b) aim their anger at some Big Boy offenders, who would they be forced to boycott?
The USA.
After all, who so these same people claim have killed, what, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, Afghans, etc. - numbers that shrink even the most fabulously inflated number of slaughtered Palestinian-Arabs by Israel.
Are they going to live in a world without products, academic papers, medicines, technological innovations, Green Cards, UN funding - not to mention military help every time the peace-loving EU can't handle a field battle in their own back yard involving a country the size of an average sitting room? That, our lovely readers, that is why these moral cowards pick on tiny Israel.
Source
BRITISH GREEN TAXES ON THE ROPES AS PUBLIC BACKLASH GROWS
The Government was struggling to maintain its green taxation agenda on transport this week amid truckers' fuel protests, a media onslaught and a revolt by its own backbenchers.
The unrest continues a miserable few weeks for green transport policy advocates, following on from the election defeat of Ken Livingstone in the London mayoral elections and of Roger Jones, the public face of Greater Manchester's congestion charging plans in the local elections (LTT?16 May).
Ministers, already alarmed at Labour's plummeting poll ratings and stung by this month's byelection defeat in Crewe and Nantwich, this week insisted that they were in listening mode to the protestors, which suggests they may be prepared to abandon policies that are central to their attempts to reduce transport's carbon dioxide emissions.
Truckers took to the streets of London and Cardiff this week to protest at the rocketing price of diesel. The Freight Transport Association says the cost of diesel has risen 34% in the last year and by 15% (14 pence per litre) since the beginning of the year.
As a minimum, the haulage sector wants the Government to commit to abandon the 2p per litre rise in fuel duty planned for the autumn. But the sector also wants a duty cut. "There is nothing to stop the Government, other than political will, reducing the duty on diesel down to EU average levels of 25p per litre from its current level of 50.35p per litre," said Simon Chapman, the FTA's chief economist.
As LTT closed for press, 42 MPs, many of them Labour, had signed an Early Day Motion calling for the Government to reconsider the proposed restructuring of vehicle excise duty from April next year. This will see the owners of vehicles with high carbon dioxide emissions pay considerably more and MPs are particularly unhappy that the new levels of VED?will apply retrospectively to vehicles registered since 2001.
The VED?issue was one of the components of the Tories' Crewe and Nantwich byelection, victory with the party distributing hundreds of campaign leaflets titled 'Grant theft auto' - a play on words from the popular computer game of the same name.
Newspapers have joined in the protests with the Telegraph, Express and Mirror among those running campaigns in support of motorists. The Guardian and Independent were this week urging ministers to stand up to the protestors and keep environmental policies on track.
Opinion polling, however, indicates that a large proportion of the public believes that the environment is being used by the Government as an excuse to raise taxation.
More here
Skipping Science Class, Continued
Three years ago, I posted about some disturbing trends in UK science education:
A couple of days ago, the Telegraph had an article about the Government's new national science test and the unbelievably simplistic questions it contains. For example:
This question can of course be answered without knowing anything at all about either electricity or copper. Demonstration:
It's pretty clear that the desired answer is (3), even if you don't know what unobtainium is or what (who?) the Gostak might be. The question on the U.K. "science test" might be a test of the ability to read and perform very simple logic; it has nothing to do with the measurement of scientific knowledge or the understanding of scientific methods. In my 2005 post, I wrote:
Melanie Phillips, in her post criticizing the new U.K science program, said "The reason given for the change to the science curriculum is to make science `relevant to the 21st century'. This is in accordance with the government's doctrine of `personalised learning', which means that everything that is taught must be `relevant' to the individual child." To which I responded in my post:
In A Preface to Paradise Lost, C S Lewis contrasts the characters of Adam and Satan, as developed in Milton's work:
One need not believe in a literal Satan, or for that matter be religious at all, to see the force of this. There is indeed something Satanic about a person who has no interests other than themselves. And by insisting that everything be "relevant" and discouraging the development of broader interests, the educational authorities in Britain are doing great harm to the children put in their charge.
Source
Earl of Devon bans homosexual marriages at his castle
The Earl of Devon, whose castle was a Royalist garrison in the English Civil War, is under siege from gay rights campaigners after banning same sex civil partnerships at his stately home. The 18th Earl, the master of Powderham Castle which is one of the oldest family houses in England, refused a request from two men to conduct their marriage ceremony behind his battlements. Lord Devon, whose family motto is Floret Virtus Vulnerata which translates roughly as "Virtue Flourishes (although) Wounded", said: "I am a Christian and therefore it [homosexuality] is objectionable to my Christian religion."
To avoid breaching the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations he has banned all civil marriage ceremonies whether they are gay or straight. "In order to stay on the right side of the law we have decided to do away with hosting civil ceremonies altogether at Powderham Castle. We are not the only place that has come acro
The Government was struggling to maintain its green taxation agenda on transport this week amid truckers' fuel protests, a media onslaught and a revolt by its own backbenchers.
The unrest continues a miserable few weeks for green transport policy advocates, following on from the election defeat of Ken Livingstone in the London mayoral elections and of Roger Jones, the public face of Greater Manchester's congestion charging plans in the local elections (LTT?16 May).
Ministers, already alarmed at Labour's plummeting poll ratings and stung by this month's byelection defeat in Crewe and Nantwich, this week insisted that they were in listening mode to the protestors, which suggests they may be prepared to abandon policies that are central to their attempts to reduce transport's carbon dioxide emissions.
Truckers took to the streets of London and Cardiff this week to protest at the rocketing price of diesel. The Freight Transport Association says the cost of diesel has risen 34% in the last year and by 15% (14 pence per litre) since the beginning of the year.
As a minimum, the haulage sector wants the Government to commit to abandon the 2p per litre rise in fuel duty planned for the autumn. But the sector also wants a duty cut. "There is nothing to stop the Government, other than political will, reducing the duty on diesel down to EU average levels of 25p per litre from its current level of 50.35p per litre," said Simon Chapman, the FTA's chief economist.
As LTT closed for press, 42 MPs, many of them Labour, had signed an Early Day Motion calling for the Government to reconsider the proposed restructuring of vehicle excise duty from April next year. This will see the owners of vehicles with high carbon dioxide emissions pay considerably more and MPs are particularly unhappy that the new levels of VED?will apply retrospectively to vehicles registered since 2001.
The VED?issue was one of the components of the Tories' Crewe and Nantwich byelection, victory with the party distributing hundreds of campaign leaflets titled 'Grant theft auto' - a play on words from the popular computer game of the same name.
Newspapers have joined in the protests with the Telegraph, Express and Mirror among those running campaigns in support of motorists. The Guardian and Independent were this week urging ministers to stand up to the protestors and keep environmental policies on track.
Opinion polling, however, indicates that a large proportion of the public believes that the environment is being used by the Government as an excuse to raise taxation.
More here
Skipping Science Class, Continued
Three years ago, I posted about some disturbing trends in UK science education:
Instead of learning science, pupils will "learn about the way science and scientists work within society". They will "develop their ability to relate their understanding of science to their own and others' decisions about lifestyles", the QCA said. They will be taught to consider how and why decisions about science and technology are made, including those that raise ethical issues, and about the "social, economic and environmental effects of such decisions".
They will learn to "question scientific information or ideas" and be taught that "uncertainties in scientific knowledge and ideas change over time", and "there are some questions that science cannot answer, and some that science cannot address". Science content of the curriculum will be kept "lite". Under "energy and electricity", pupils will be taught that "energy transfers can be measured and their efficiency calculated, which is important in considering the economic costs and environmental effects of energy use".
A couple of days ago, the Telegraph had an article about the Government's new national science test and the unbelievably simplistic questions it contains. For example:
In a multiple choice question, teenagers were asked why electric wires are made from copper. The four possible answers were that copper was brown, was not magnetic, conducted electricity, or that it conducted heat.
This question can of course be answered without knowing anything at all about either electricity or copper. Demonstration:
Why is unobtanium used to summon the Gostak?
1)Unobtainum is purple
2)Unobtanium is not magnetic
3)The Gostak has a strong affinity for unobtainum
4)Unobtanium is attractive to gnomes
It's pretty clear that the desired answer is (3), even if you don't know what unobtainium is or what (who?) the Gostak might be. The question on the U.K. "science test" might be a test of the ability to read and perform very simple logic; it has nothing to do with the measurement of scientific knowledge or the understanding of scientific methods. In my 2005 post, I wrote:
At least in the U.S., the vastly-increased spending on education over recent decades has been driven in large part by the conviction that we are living in a more scientific and technological society, and that schools must provide students with appropriate knowledge in order for them to be able to succeed in the job market and to fulfill their roles as citizens. I feel fairly sure that the same kind of reasoning has been used to justify educational expenditures in the U.K. So, the schools have taken the money on pretext, and are now failing to perform the duty that should go with it.
Melanie Phillips, in her post criticizing the new U.K science program, said "The reason given for the change to the science curriculum is to make science `relevant to the 21st century'. This is in accordance with the government's doctrine of `personalised learning', which means that everything that is taught must be `relevant' to the individual child." To which I responded in my post:
"There are so many things wrong (with the U.K.'s new approach to science education) that it's difficult to know where to start. First of all: it's a natural human characteristic to be curious about the universe you live in. Schools should encourage this curiosity, not smother it in the name of a fake "relevance."
In A Preface to Paradise Lost, C S Lewis contrasts the characters of Adam and Satan, as developed in Milton's work:
Adam talks about God, the Forbidden tree, sleep, the difference between beast and man, his plans for the morrow, the stars and the angels. He discusses dreams and clouds, the sun, the moon, and the planets, the winds and the birds. He relates his own creation and celebrates the beauty and majesty of Eve.Adam, though locally confined to a small park on a small planet, has interests that embrace `all the choir of heaven and all the furniture of earth.' Satan has been in the heaven of Heavens and in the abyss of Hell, and surveyed all that lies between them, and in that whole immensity has found only one thing that interests Satan. And that "one thing" is, of course, Satan himself.his position and the wrongs he believes have been done to him. Satan's monomaniac concern with himself and his supposed rights and wrongs is a necessity of the Satanic predicament.
One need not believe in a literal Satan, or for that matter be religious at all, to see the force of this. There is indeed something Satanic about a person who has no interests other than themselves. And by insisting that everything be "relevant" and discouraging the development of broader interests, the educational authorities in Britain are doing great harm to the children put in their charge.
Source
Earl of Devon bans homosexual marriages at his castle
The Earl of Devon, whose castle was a Royalist garrison in the English Civil War, is under siege from gay rights campaigners after banning same sex civil partnerships at his stately home. The 18th Earl, the master of Powderham Castle which is one of the oldest family houses in England, refused a request from two men to conduct their marriage ceremony behind his battlements. Lord Devon, whose family motto is Floret Virtus Vulnerata which translates roughly as "Virtue Flourishes (although) Wounded", said: "I am a Christian and therefore it [homosexuality] is objectionable to my Christian religion."
To avoid breaching the 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations he has banned all civil marriage ceremonies whether they are gay or straight. "In order to stay on the right side of the law we have decided to do away with hosting civil ceremonies altogether at Powderham Castle. We are not the only place that has come acro